Webhooks destination custom headers / metadata

[alexbouchardd]

Following conversation in Add a custom_headers map in the Destination model so that any key/value pairs are included in the HTTP headers when sending the event. Some headers are "static" for given destinations and, as such, instead of being sent in every event, could be statically defined on the destination with a custom_headers map or similar.

[alexluong]

Instead of custom_headers, I'm proposing the name delivery_metadata since it better describes the purpose (static metadata merged into every event delivery) without assuming HTTP-specific terminology like "headers".

This field would be a map[string]string that gets merged with event metadata on delivery.

One consideration: should this field be encrypted during storage like credentials? It could potentially store sensitive values (auth tokens, API keys) depending on the use case, though not all use cases would require it.

[alexbouchardd]

I'm proposing the name delivery_metadata since it better describes the purpose

Agreed. Although I'm wondering if all the metadata would be relevant for all the destinations. For example in this Api-Key case, that metadata is only relevant through webhooks

One consideration: should this field be encrypted during storage like credentials? It could potentially store sensitive values (auth tokens, API keys) depending on the use case, though not all use cases would require it.

That seems sensible, yes, given it can be used for api key, etc. Perhaps you can mark a field as sensitive?

[alexluong]

That seems sensible, yes, given it can be used for api key, etc. Perhaps you can mark a field as sensitive?

yes, we can do so. Implementation-wise it's straightforward but behavior-wise it's a bit tricky. For example, should we include this field in GET requests?

[alexbouchardd]

Yeah agreed, I think we should let that one simmer and wait for more requests/feedback

[alexluong]

Alright, working on this right now, I'm going to encrypt it + include in the GET request and we'll see how it goes. Mainly because I'm working on #537 so wanted to sneak this issue in as well.