Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore: add security logs to webhook verification failures #10372

Merged

Conversation

notfromstatefarm
Copy link
Contributor

@notfromstatefarm notfromstatefarm commented Aug 17, 2022

Signed-off-by: notfromstatefarm 86763948+notfromstatefarm@users.noreply.github.com

Signed-off-by: notfromstatefarm <86763948+notfromstatefarm@users.noreply.github.com>
@notfromstatefarm notfromstatefarm changed the title add security logs to webhook verification failures chore: add security logs to webhook verification failures Aug 17, 2022
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 17, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #10372 (4052f56) into master (68d0ef0) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #10372      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   46.25%   46.23%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         228      228              
  Lines       27883    27893      +10     
==========================================
  Hits        12897    12897              
- Misses      13247    13253       +6     
- Partials     1739     1743       +4     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
util/webhook/webhook.go 65.27% <0.00%> (-3.17%) ⬇️
util/settings/settings.go 51.36% <0.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

Copy link
Collaborator

@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it be terribly difficult to pull the payload parsing/checking logic into a function and unit test it (maybe even unit testing that the logs happen)?

Not sure how much work it would be to mock the payloads that would produce these errors.

Copy link
Collaborator

@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Merging without tests. At worst it's either no-logs or excessive logs. Either one is easy enough to deal with later. Thanks @notfromstatefarm!

@crenshaw-dev crenshaw-dev merged commit 00a1ce6 into argoproj:master Oct 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants