Skip to content

Conversation

@0xRy4n
Copy link
Member

@0xRy4n 0xRy4n commented Jul 1, 2025

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce?
Put an x in the boxes that apply.

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality not to work as expected).
  • Documentation Update (if none of the other choices applies).

Proposed changes

This does the following:

  1. Restructures the webhook code - HMAC verification, HTB account handler, etc.
  2. Reworks much of the verification helper- we no longer assume an MP account and operate from the link event
  3. Verify / identify cogs replaced to explain new process
  4. Account and MP handlers added with new events
  5. Linting rework and misc refactoring

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply.

  • I have read and followed the CONTRIBUTING.md
    doc.
  • Lint and unit tests pass locally with my changes.
  • I have added the necessary documentation (if appropriate).

Additional context

Add any other context or screenshots here.

0xRy4n added 22 commits June 16, 2025 20:57
…d a placeholder for future implementation to fetch link state from HTB Account.
1. Rewrote the verification instructions and moved them to their own helper function
2. Replaced both the identify and verify commands to send these new instructions
Copy link
Contributor

@dimoschi dimoschi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had the opportunity to review the code, even though the PR is still draft. Good job, some minor improvements. In general for the BaseHandler and the other handlers that implement it, I would consider making some methods private.

logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)


BOT_TYPE = TypeVar("BOT_TYPE", "Bot", DiscordBot)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this really needed?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was an attempt to try to tame mypy but it is not really necessary no.

@0xRy4n 0xRy4n marked this pull request as ready for review July 17, 2025 04:05
@0xRy4n 0xRy4n requested a review from makelarisjr as a code owner July 17, 2025 04:05
Copy link
Contributor

@dimoschi dimoschi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@dimoschi
Copy link
Contributor

@0xRy4n should we merge and release?

@dimoschi
Copy link
Contributor

@0xRy4n & @0xEmma should we merge that? The PR looks good.

@0xEmma
Copy link
Collaborator

0xEmma commented Sep 11, 2025

good on my side

@dimoschi dimoschi merged commit 159f58d into main Sep 15, 2025
5 checks passed
@dimoschi dimoschi deleted the feature/new-events branch September 15, 2025 07:15
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.

5 participants