Draft: Updated Webhook types

[smit-modi]

Added missing fields in DeploymentEvent.

Since GitLab doesn't send time data in RFC3339 format, currently, it is being unmarshalled as a string, I have added customTime as https://github.com/go-playground/webhooks/blob/master/gitlab/payload.go#L12 is doing.

For now only updated DeploymentEvent, planning to update other events as well soon.

[smit-modi]

@svanharmelen What are your thoughts on changing the fields with time data, from string to customTime type?

[svanharmelen]

Hmm... We already have ISOTime as a custom time value, I'm not sure if I want to add more custom time objects.

Yet I do like your idea to try and parse multiple different formats, but that will only help parsing from the string to time.Time, not the other way around (for queries that take a time).

It's indeed a shame the GitLab API doesn't use a consistent time format, yet until now we seemed to be able to get away with just ISOTime and time.Time.

Guess I want to think about it a little and have a closer look when back behind a desk again (I'm away for a few days).

[klmitch]

I thought ya'll had an alternative to time.Time that you were using, but I only saw time.Time in these structures. The name customTime is actually coming from other code that we're currently using. Is this something that we could consider adding to the ISOTime? Or could we perhaps add some additional functionality to ISOTime or customTime to track what format was read, for re-marshaling later. (Though we'd have to have some sort of functionality to map it to 3339, as that's what our existing code is intended to do...)

[svanharmelen]

So did you check/confirm this? Can you share your findings? Same question goes for all places where you removed similar comments.

[svanharmelen]

Same question, were you able to confirm this? Can you share where/how?

[smit-modi]

I am keeping that field, even though the doc doesn't mention it, it does send Description change.

[svanharmelen]

OK, I just noticed I commented on a specific commit instead of the whole PR and that the PR is still labelled as Draft 😊 So you should probably take my comments with a grain of salt...

I'll check again when the Draft label is removed and please also note that you can actually create a draft PR instead of just adding the text Draft as a label...

[smit-modi]

I thought ya'll had an alternative to time.Time that you were using, but I only saw time.Time in these structures. The name customTime is actually coming from other code that we're currently using. Is this something that we could consider adding to the ISOTime? Or could we perhaps add some additional functionality to ISOTime or customTime to track what format was read, for re-marshaling later. (Though we'd have to have some sort of functionality to map it to 3339, as that's what our existing code is intended to do...)

@svanharmelen waiting for your response on this.

[GaikwadPratik]

@smit-modi,

For your reference,
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/394785
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/19567

So we will need more than one formats, including RFC3339 to be handled, as I don't see any of the above ticket being resolved sooner or at all. They kept the same format as webhooks in graphql response for some reason when using time.RFC3339 is closest to being perfect format when used in UTC.