# Handling Webhooks in Phoenix

14.02.2018

I recently had to implement a controller, which took care of receiving and processing webhooks. The thing is, the application had to handle webhooks which often contained very different information, and they were all going to one route and one controller action. This didn't really seem to fit with my goal of keeping controller actions concise and focused. So I set out to find a better solution.

## TL;DR

Use forward on MyApp.Router to forward the request (%Conn{}) to a custom plug (MyApp.Plugs.WebhookShunt) which maps %Conn{} to a route (and thus a controller action) defined on MyApp.WebhookRouter, based on the data in the request body.

I.e.,

%Conn{} -> Router -> WebhookShunt -> WebhookRouter -> WebhookController

## LV;E (long version; enjoy!)

Let's restate the problem:

• all requests are being sent to the same webhook callback url
• there are many different possible request payloads
• application requires different computation depending on payload

Let's say we're receiving webhooks which contain an event key in the request body. It describes the event which triggered the webhook and we can use it to determine what code we are going to run.

Below was my first and somewhat naïve implementation. This is what the router looked like:

scope "/", MyAppWeb do
post("/webhook", WebhookController, :hook)
end


And the WebhookController:

def hook(conn, params) do
case params["event"] do
"subtraction" -> #handle subtraction
"multiplication" -> #handle multiplication
"divison" -> #handle division
end
end


All incoming webhooks go to the same route and therefore, the same controller action.

It took three refactors to get to a satisfactory solution. I will, however, explain each one in this post, as they are logical steps in reaching the final solution and proved interesting learning opportunities:

1. Multiple function clauses for controller action
2. Plug called from endpoint
3. Plug and second router

## Multiple function clauses

Let's start separating the computation into smaller fragments by moving the pattern matching from the case statement to the function's definition. We are still using only one route and only one controller action, but we write multiple clauses of that function to match a certain value of the event key in the params.

Here's our controller with the multiple clauses:

def hook(conn, %{"event" => "addition"} = params), do: add(params)
def hook(conn, %{"event" => "subtraction"} = params), do: subtract(params)
def hook(conn, %{"event" => "multiplication"} = params), do: multiply(params)
def hook(conn, %{"event" => "division"} = params), do: divide(params)


The request payload will match the clauses for the hook/2 function and execute different functions depending on what event was passed in. This refactor is a step in the right direction, but it still doesn't fit well with the idea that a controller action should handle one specific request. The router serves no real purpose, as there is still only one route, and our code has the potential to get very messy.

## Shunting incoming connections

What if we could interfere with the incoming webhook before it hits the router? We could then modify the path of the request depending on the params, match a route and execute the corresponding controller action.

The router would look something like this:

scope "/webhook", MyAppWeb do
post("/subtraction", WebhookController, :subtract)
post("/multiplication", WebhookController, :multiply)
post("/division", WebhookController, :divide)
end


And the controller:

def add(conn, params), do: #handle addition
def subtract(conn, params), do: #handle subtraction
def multiply(conn, params), do: #handle multiplication
def divide(conn, params), do: #handle division


In this case, each controller action serves a specific function, the router maps each incoming request to these actions and the code is easily maintainable, well-structured and won't become jumbled over time. To achieve this, however, we need to change a couple of things.

First off, we need to interfere with the incoming request before it hits the router so it will match our new routes. This is because the webhook callback url is always the same and doesn't depend on what event triggered it e.g., "my_app_url/webhook". You would think we could create a plug for this and simply add it to a custom pipeline for the routes. The problem with this, is the router will invoke the pipeline after it matches a route. Therefore, we cannot modify the request's path in this pipeline and expect it to match our addition, subtraction, multiplication or division routes. If we want our new routes to match, we need to intercept the %Conn{} in a plug called in the endpoint. The endpoint handles starting the web server and transforming requests through several defined plugs before calling the router.

Let's add a plug called MyApp.WebhookShunt to the endpoint, just before the router.

defmodule MyApp.Endpoint do
# ...
plug(MyApp.WebhookShunt)
plug(MyApp.Router)
end


And let's create a file called webhook_shunt.ex and add it to our plugs folder:

defmodule MyAppWeb.Plug.WebhookShunt do
alias Plug.Conn

def init(opts), do: opts

def call(conn, _opts), do: conn
end


The core components of a Phoenix application are plugs. This includes endpoints, routers and controllers. There are two flavors of Plug, function plugs and module plugs. We'll be using the latter in this example, but I highly suggest checking out the docs.

Let's examine the code above, you'll notice there are two functions already defined:

• init/1 which initializes any arguments or options to be passed to call/2 (executed at compile time)
• call/2 which transforms the connection (it's actually a simple function plug and is executed at run time)

Both of these need to be implemented in a module plug. Let's modify call/2 to match the addition event in the request payload and change the request path to the route we defined for addition:

defmodule MyAppWeb.Plug.WebhookShunt do
alias Plug.Conn

def init(opts), do: opts

def call(%Conn{params: %{"event" => "addition"}} = conn, opts) do
conn
|> WebhookRouter.call(opts)
end

def call(conn, _opts), do: conn

def change_path_info(conn, new_path), do: put_in(conn.path_info, new_path)
end


change_path_info/2 changes the path_info property on the %Conn{}, based on the request payload matched in call/2, in this case to "webhook/addition". You'll notice I also added a no-op function clause for call/2. If other routes are added and don't need to be manipulated in the same way as the ones above, we need to make sure the request gets through to the router unmodified.

This strategy isn't great, however. We are placing code in the endpoint, which will be executed no matter what the request path is. Furthermore, the endpoint is only supposed to (from the docs):

• provide a wrapper for starting and stopping the endpoint as part of a supervision tree
• define an initial plug pipeline for requests to pass through
• host web specific configuration for your application

Interfering with the request to map it to a route at this point would be unidiomatic Phoenix. It would also make the app slower, and harder to maintain and debug.

## Forwarding conn to the shunt and calling another router

Instead of intercepting the %Conn{} in the endpoint, we could forward it from the application's main router to the WebhookShunt, modify it and call a second router whose sole purpose would be to handle the incoming webhooks.

1. The request hits router which has one path for all webhooks ("/webhook")
2. %Conn{} is forwarded to the WebhookShunt which modifies the path based on the request payload
3. The WebhookShunt calls the WebhookRouter, passing it the modified %Conn{}
4. The WebhookRouter matches the %Conn{} path and calls the appropriate action on the WebhookController

I.e.,

%Conn{} -> Router -> WebhookShunt -> WebhookRouter -> WebhookController

I think this approach is better. We don't need to modify the endpoint, the router simply forwards anything that matches the webhook path to the shunt and the app's concerns are clearly separated.

Let's set up our webhook path in router.ex:

scope "/", MyAppWeb do
forward("/webhook", Plugs.WebhookShunt)
end


As long as your external APIs makes a request to this path when you do the setup for the webhook callbacks, every incoming request to this path will be forwarded to the WebhookShunt.

Let's refactor call/2 to handle all events by replacing the hardcoded "addition" event and path with the event variable:

defmodule MyAppWeb.Plugs.WebhookShunt do
alias Plug.Conn
alias MyAppWeb.WebhookRouter

def init(opts), do: opts

def call(%Conn{params: %{"event" => event}} = conn, opts) do
conn
|> change_path_info(["webhook", event])
|> WebhookRouter.call(opts)
end

def change_path_info(conn, new_path), do: put_in(conn.path_info, new_path)
end


With this refactor, all our routes must follow the "webhook/event" pattern. In more complex applications, you might not be able to conveniently use the event name as a part of the path but the principle remains the same.

You'll notice I've removed the no-op call/2 function clause. This is because we no longer have to handle all potential requests like we did in the endpoint; we can focus entirely on the webhhooks. Now, if we receive a request with an event which doesn't match a route, Phoenix will raise an error, which is what we want as we don't know how to handle that request.

Note: if you can't configure your API to send only the webhooks you're interested in handling, you should write some code to take care of that.

Let's also create webhook_router.ex in the _web directory:

defmodule MyAppWeb.WebhookRouter do
use MyAppWeb, :router

scope "/webhook", MyAppWeb do
post("/subtraction", WebhookController, :subtract)
post("/multiplication", WebhookController, :multiply)
post("/division", WebhookController, :divide)
end
end


The WebhookRouter is called from the WebhookShunt with WebhookRouter.call(conn, opts), and maps the modified %Conn{}s to the appropriate controller action on the WebhookController, which looks like this:

def add(conn, params), do: #handle addition
def subtract(conn, params), do: #handle subtraction
def multiply(conn, params), do: #handle multiplication
def divide(conn, params), do: #handle division


I think this last solution ticks all the boxes. Externally, there is still only one webhook callback url; internally, we have a route and a controller action for each event our application needs to handle. Our concerns are therefore clearly separated, making the application extensible and easy to maintain.

So there you have it, handling webhooks in Phoenix.

This post was originally published on the simplabs tech blog.