Issue 844: Redact api token in chat message

[briemarie]

Debug logs are printing api tokens as part of the request message.
Instead of printing the token, the token is transformed into a redacted
string if it is not empty. If the token is empty, which is a useful
piece of information that should be surfaced in the request, the empty
string is transformed into a nil string to make it more obvious.

Pull Request Guidelines

These are recommendations for pull requests.
They are strictly guidelines to help manage expectations.

PR preparation

[PASSED] Run make pr-prep from the root of the repository to run formatting, linting and tests.

Should this be an issue instead - YES IT IS #844

• is it a convenience method? (no new functionality, streamlines some use case)
• exposes a previously private type, const, method, etc.
• is it application specific (caching, retry logic, rate limiting, etc)
• is it performance related.

API changes

Since API changes have to be maintained they undergo a more detailed review and are more likely to require changes.

• no tests, if you're adding to the API include at least a single test of the happy case.
• If you can accomplish your goal without changing the API, then do so.
• dependency changes. updates are okay. adding/removing need justification.

Examples of API changes that do not meet guidelines:

• in library cache for users. caches are use case specific.
• Convenience methods for Sending Messages, update, post, ephemeral, etc. consider opening an issue instead.

[christophercutajar]

LGTM

[briemarie]

@christophercutajar I see you approved this. Will it be getting merged or was there another release that fixed the issue of the token being exposed in logs?

[christophercutajar]

@kanata2 when you have time can you please review it yourself and merge it!

[kanata2]

If the token is rewritten, will it not be able to authenticate correctly?

[kanata2]

This changes affect other than debug logs.

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.

[briemarie]

kanata2 I realize that my proposed solution wasn't the proper one, but has this been solved internally by your team in another PR?

[kanata2]

No, we have not worked on it yet.
If you think the labeling by GitHub Actions is inappropriate, please re-open it and reply to my comment.

[briemarie]

@kanata2 Its ok that this PR is closed since it wasn't the right solution. Looks like the original issue #844 is still open so hopefully that gets addressed.