Retool project webhooks #142
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ChrisPenner
force-pushed
the
cp/project-webhooks
branch
from
76e8c07 to
4db8e84
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Overview
Allows creating webhooks on a project itself, which can be managed by maintainers, and provides a better UI/UX for Simon to link into.
Implementation notes
Adds
/users/<handle>/projects/<slug>/webhooks/users/<handle>/projects/<slug>/webhooks/users/<handle>/projects/<slug>/webhooks/<subscription-id>/users/<handle>/projects/<slug>/webhooks/<subscription-id>See transcripts for more details.
Interesting/controversial decisions
Include anything that you thought twice about, debated, chose arbitrarily, etc.
What could have been done differently, but wasn't? And why?
Test coverage
Have you included tests (which could be a transcript) for this change, or is it somehow covered by existing tests?
Would you recommend improving the test coverage (either as part of this PR or as a separate issue) or do you think it’s adequate?
Loose ends
Link to related issues that address things you didn't get to. Stuff you encountered on the way and decided not to include in this PR.