[pve-devel] [pbs-devel] [PATCH manager v2 07/12] api: add routes for webhook notification endpoints

[Lukas Wagner]

On  2024-07-17 17:36, Max Carrara wrote:
> On Fri Jul 12, 2024 at 1:27 PM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote:
>> These just call the API implementation via the perl-rs bindings.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner at proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>  PVE/API2/Cluster/Notifications.pm | 263 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 262 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Cluster/Notifications.pm b/PVE/API2/Cluster/Notifications.pm
>> index 10b611c9..eae2d436 100644
>> --- a/PVE/API2/Cluster/Notifications.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/API2/Cluster/Notifications.pm
>> @@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>>  	    { name => 'gotify' },
>>  	    { name => 'sendmail' },
>>  	    { name => 'smtp' },
>> +	    { name => 'webhook' },
>>  	];
>>  
>>  	return $result;
>> @@ -144,7 +145,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>>  		'type' => {
>>  		    description => 'Type of the target.',
>>  		    type  => 'string',
>> -		    enum => [qw(sendmail gotify smtp)],
>> +		    enum => [qw(sendmail gotify smtp webhook)],
>>  		},
>>  		'comment' => {
>>  		    description => 'Comment',
>> @@ -1094,6 +1095,266 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>>      }
>>  });
>>  
>> +my $webhook_properties = {
>> +    name => {
>> +	description => 'The name of the endpoint.',
>> +	type => 'string',
>> +	format => 'pve-configid',
>> +    },
>> +    url => {
>> +	description => 'Server URL',
>> +	type => 'string',
>> +    },
>> +    method => {
>> +	description => 'HTTP method',
>> +	type => 'string',
>> +	enum => [qw(post put get)],
>> +    },
>> +    header => {
>> +	description => 'HTTP headers to set. These have to be formatted as'
>> +	  . ' a property string in the format name=<name>,value=<base64 of value>',
>> +	type => 'array',
>> +	items => {
>> +	    type => 'string',
>> +	},
>> +	optional => 1,
>> +    },
>> +    body => {
>> +	description => 'HTTP body, base64 encoded',
>> +	type => 'string',
>> +	optional => 1,
>> +    },
>> +    secret => {
>> +	description => 'Secrets to set. These have to be formatted as'
>> +	  . ' a property string in the format name=<name>,value=<base64 of value>',
>> +	type => 'array',
>> +	items => {
>> +	    type => 'string',
>> +	},
>> +	optional => 1,
>> +    },
>> +    comment => {
>> +	description => 'Comment',
>> +	type => 'string',
>> +	optional => 1,
>> +    },
>> +    disable => {
>> +	description => 'Disable this target',
>> +	type => 'boolean',
>> +	optional => 1,
>> +	default => 0,
>> +    },
>> +};
>> +
>> +__PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>> +    name => 'get_webhook_endpoints',
>> +    path => 'endpoints/webhook',
>> +    method => 'GET',
>> +    description => 'Returns a list of all webhook endpoints',
>> +    protected => 1,
>> +    permissions => {
>> +	check => ['perm', '/mapping/notifications', ['Mapping.Modify']],
>> +	check => ['perm', '/mapping/notifications', ['Mapping.Audit']],
>> +    },
>> +    parameters => {
>> +	additionalProperties => 0,
>> +	properties => {},
>> +    },
>> +    returns => {
>> +	type => 'array',
>> +	items => {
>> +	    type => 'object',
>> +	    properties => {
>> +		%$webhook_properties,
> 
> Would prefer `$webhook_properties->%*` here (postfix dereferencing) -
> even though not explicitly stated in our style guide, we use that kind
> of syntax for calling subroutines behind a reference, e.g.
> `$foo->($arg)` instead of `&$foo($arg)`.
> 

I kinda prefer the brevity of the prefix variant in this case. Are there
any pitfalls/problems with the prefix that I'm not aware of? If not, I'd prefer
to keep this as is, I used the syntax in many other spots in this file ;)

-- 
- Lukas