Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Push Overseerr updates via webhook #134187

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

joostlek
Copy link
Member

Proposed change

Push Overseerr updates via webhook. We try to setup the webhook during setup of the integration.

Type of change

  • Dependency upgrade
  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New integration (thank you!)
  • New feature (which adds functionality to an existing integration)
  • Deprecation (breaking change to happen in the future)
  • Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
  • Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Additional information

  • This PR fixes or closes issue: fixes #
  • This PR is related to issue:
  • Link to documentation pull request:

Checklist

  • The code change is tested and works locally.
  • Local tests pass. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
  • There is no commented out code in this PR.
  • I have followed the development checklist
  • I have followed the perfect PR recommendations
  • The code has been formatted using Ruff (ruff format homeassistant tests)
  • Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

If user exposed functionality or configuration variables are added/changed:

If the code communicates with devices, web services, or third-party tools:

  • The manifest file has all fields filled out correctly.
    Updated and included derived files by running: python3 -m script.hassfest.
  • New or updated dependencies have been added to requirements_all.txt.
    Updated by running python3 -m script.gen_requirements_all.
  • For the updated dependencies - a link to the changelog, or at minimum a diff between library versions is added to the PR description.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

@joostlek joostlek marked this pull request as ready for review December 29, 2024 11:47
@joostlek joostlek marked this pull request as draft December 29, 2024 11:47
@joostlek joostlek marked this pull request as ready for review December 29, 2024 14:07
| NotificationType.REQUEST_PROCESSING_FAILED
| NotificationType.REQUEST_AUTOMATICALLY_APPROVED
)
JSON_PAYLOAD = (
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

how HA specific is this/could this be generated in the lib based on notification types as input (tbh I don't really love having this here)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

image

So Overseerr has the option to shape the webhook however you want. And I don't really think that this is part of the library, as the library does not consume the webhook but HA does

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I get that, I was thinking about moving that shaping part to the lib, just so we don’t handle raw json here. Can we at least prettify the formatting (triple string) if it stays here for readability?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The fun part is that I removed all space in between, as apparently overseerr seems to mess with spaces.

But I think moving the shape to the library leaves you still with a mess because how are you going to shape parameters for that

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

was thinking about passing lists per top level key since it's always key: {{key}}

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is not

image

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

exactly, that's why I said per top level key as those are different

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But someone can wish to have a different layout and not have these keys there

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I get that, was just looking for a way to avoid a large raw json block here

@home-assistant
Copy link

Please take a look at the requested changes, and use the Ready for review button when you are done, thanks 👍

Learn more about our pull request process.

@home-assistant home-assistant bot marked this pull request as draft December 29, 2024 20:43
@joostlek joostlek marked this pull request as ready for review December 29, 2024 20:51
@home-assistant home-assistant bot requested a review from zweckj December 29, 2024 20:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants