feat: Add webhook_secret column to repos #28
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #28 +/- ##
=======================================
- Coverage 95.26 95.20 -0.06
=======================================
Files 569 570 +1
Lines 14291 14317 +26
=======================================
+ Hits 13613 13630 +17
- Misses 678 687 +9
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
| @@ -20,7 +21,7 @@ def add_arguments(self, parser: CommandParser) -> None: | |||
|
|
|||
| def handle(self, *args, **options): | |||
| repos = Repository.objects.filter( | |||
| Q(author__service="gitlab") & ~Q(hookid=None), | |||
| Q(author__service="gitlab") & ~Q(hookid=None) & Q(webhook_secret=None), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we still need/want to rely on hookid? Are we deprecating that eventually?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, we'll continue using that field. It stores the external ID of the webhook installed in the Git provider's repo. We need that ID to make any updates to the webhook.
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #28 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.25% 95.20% -0.06%
==========================================
Files 569 570 +1
Lines 14291 14317 +26
==========================================
+ Hits 13613 13630 +17
- Misses 678 687 +9
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Instead of a globally configured webhook secret for GitLab we'll store a unique secret per repo. This PR adds a new
repos.webhook_secretcolumn to store that secret.