Apidocs webhooks fixes

[JL102]

1. The alert div below the send test notification button now provides more helpful errors
2. Fixed the 400 Unauthorized error when sending test notifications

Description

For a while (at least a year), sending test webhook notifications has been broken. I discovered today that it was caused by the page caching, wherein the CSRF token rendered into the page belonged to whoever happened to load the page at the time it was re-rendered and cached, and would eventually become stale and invalid. I discussed with @ZachOrr and we came to the conclusion that the testing functions should be placed behind a privileged page. I gave the cached variant of the page a "Log in to send test notifications" button, which takes you to the authenticated variant of the page which has cache disabled, allowing the CSRF token being rendered to be accurate/up-to-date, fixing the 400 CSRF token expired error.

Second, I improved the error handling. If there's a user error involving an incorrect or not-specified key, the alert div below the button will show the specific error. And if there's an unexpected error (e.g. network error, or, god forbid, a CSRF issue), it'll display "Something went horribly wrong. Refresh the page and try again." in the same box instead of with an alert().

Motivation and Context

Webhook test notifications ain't workin!

How Has This Been Tested?

I tested the error handling functionality by putting in incorrect or empty keys when sending test notifications. The CSRF token stuff works fine in my environment, but unfortunately, the webhook notifications don't actually send from my development instance. I haven't modified any of the code responsible for the webhook sending code, though, so I suspect it'll work in production. But it'll have to be tested in the production environment just to be sure. However, since webhook test notifications have been broken for over a year, the risk involved in the possibility webhook test notifications not working with this code change is zero.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would change API specifications or require data migrations)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 4 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.92%. Comparing base (24652da) to head (74efcf9).
Report is 93 commits behind head on py3.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/backend/web/handlers/apidocs.py	77.77%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              py3    #5828      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.10%   92.92%   -0.19%     
==========================================
  Files         658      658              
  Lines       42145    42576     +431     
  Branches       60       60              
==========================================
+ Hits        39241    39562     +321     
- Misses       2896     3006     +110     
  Partials        8        8              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ZachOrr]

This is looking cool! Pulled and looked at this locally. Let's try to get the errors fixed up and we can work on landing this

[ZachOrr]

Can we get tests for these changes?

[github-actions]

Screenshots

Homepage

GameDay