[TwitchExtensionVersion] New badge

[nixxquality]

Closes #6899

If you're wondering about color: '6441A4' it's taken from here: Twitch Purple #6441A4.

[shields-ci]

	Messages
📖	✨ Thanks for your contribution to Shields, @nixxquality!

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 2a015a2

[nixxquality]

Honestly I don't really understand the import _noTwitchToken from './twitch.service.js' but it works.

[chris48s]

Hi @nixxquality . Thanks for working on this. Looks pretty good but I've left a couple of comments for things we can improve.

@PyvesB - sorry I wrote a few notes on this before noticing that you had assigned yourself the review. Since I've had a look at it I've posted the comments. Hopefully I'm not treading on your toes 🤞

[nixxquality]

I initially kept the schema that way because I figured that it would be fine since error responses have a radically different structure.
However upon reading your input validation document I can see the value of having real protection against runtime errors.

I wrote a test to verify the Joi schema but it made the twitch-base code fail:

t.create('possible schema change')
  .skipWhen(noTwitchToken)
  .get('/aaa5cu1nc9f4p75b791w8d3yo9d195.json')
  .intercept(nock =>
    nock('https://api.twitch.tv/helix/extensions/')
      .get('/released?extension_id=aaa5cu1nc9f4p75b791w8d3yo9d195')
      .reply(200, {data: [{title: "thing without version"}]})
  )
  .expectBadge({ label: 'twitch extension', message: 'not found' })

// resulted in
//      Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'statusCode' of undefined
//      at TwitchExtensionVersion._requestJson (file:///C:/Users/Linus/Code/shields/services/twitch/twitch-base.js:94:60)

// for context, this is line 94:
        if (err.name === 'InvalidResponse' && err.response.statusCode === 401) {

Do Nock responses not come out the same way as regular responses? Anyway, I'm sure testing for negatives like this isn't a priority in a service's tests so I think we can ignore that.
I did try the schema in the Joi sandbox and it behaved as intended.

---

Since I'm using renderVersionBadge now I dropped the whole render function like other similar versioned badges do.

[chris48s]

I think in this case, the HTTP interactions we would need to mock are more complicated than usual due to OAuth - _requestJson() is doing a lot in TwitchBase:

shields/services/twitch/twitch-base.js

Lines 73 to 114 in 17beba4

	async _requestJson(request) {
	// assign Client-ID and Authorization headers to request.options.headers if they are not set
	request = {
	...request,
	options: {
	...request.options,
	headers: {
	'Client-ID': this.authHelper._user,
	Authorization: `Bearer ${await this._twitchToken()}`,
	...(request.options && request.options.headers),
	},
	},
	}
	for (let i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
	// 3 trials
	try {
	return await super._requestJson(request)
	} catch (err) {
	// if the token expire or is revoked
	// https://dev.twitch.tv/docs/authentication/#refresh-in-response-to-server-rejection-for-bad-authentication
	if (err.name === 'InvalidResponse' && err.response.statusCode === 401) {
	TwitchBase.__twitchToken = this._getNewToken()
	continue
	}
	// if API limit is exceeded
	// https://dev.twitch.tv/docs/api/guide/#rate-limits
	if (err.name === 'InvalidResponse' && err.response.statusCode === 429) {
	const resetTimestamp = err.response.headers['ratelimit-reset']
	await sleep(Math.abs(resetTimestamp - Date.now()) + 100)
	continue
	}
	// cannot recover
	throw err
	}
	}
	// one last time
	return super._requestJson(request)
	}

You're right that we don't need an explicit test for validation fail at the service level though, so I think we can sidestep it.

This LGTM but I'll leave this open and see if @PyvesB wants to chime in on this before we merge it.

[PyvesB]

Looks good to me as well, thanks @nixxquality ! 🎉

I've checked my Twitch API tokens setup, I don't believe any changes are required there to hit the new endpoint. Let's merge this!