git/github: default GitHub webhooks to TLS verification

[Vi-shub]

• Default GitHub repository webhooks created by pkg/git/github to insecure_ssl: "0" so GitHub verifies TLS when delivering to HTTPS payload URLs.
• Remove the prior insecure default ("1") and the associated TODO in CreateWebHook.

/kind bug

Fixes #3713

GitHub’s webhook insecure_ssl setting was hard-coded to "1", which disables TLS certificate verification for HTTPS webhook targets. The secure default is "0" for normal HTTPS endpoints. Users whose controller URL uses a certificate that GitHub does not trust (for example self-signed TLS in lab environments) may need a follow-up opt-in if hook creation or deliveries fail.

@davidhadas @lkingland can you please review this. Thanks for your time.

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: Vi-shub / name: Vi-shub (1e5ad39)

[knative-prow]

Welcome @Vi-shub! It looks like this is your first PR to knative/func 🎉

[knative-prow]

Hi @Vi-shub. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a knative member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 56.98%. Comparing base (c28a5dc) to head (d032347).
⚠️ Report is 67 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/git/github/github.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3714      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   56.18%   56.98%   +0.79%     
==========================================
  Files         181      181              
  Lines       20928    21116     +188     
==========================================
+ Hits        11758    12032     +274     
+ Misses       8007     7861     -146     
- Partials     1163     1223      +60     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	35.80% <0.00%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
e2e go	32.42% <0.00%> (?)
e2e node	28.20% <0.00%> (?)
e2e python	32.80% <0.00%> (?)
e2e quarkus	28.34% <0.00%> (?)
e2e rust	27.75% <0.00%> (-0.27%)	⬇️
e2e springboot	26.24% <0.00%> (-0.27%)	⬇️
e2e typescript	28.32% <0.00%> (-0.27%)	⬇️
e2e-config-ci	17.70% <0.00%> (?)
integration	17.28% <0.00%> (-0.19%)	⬇️
unit macos-14	45.05% <0.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
unit macos-latest	45.05% <0.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
unit ubuntu-24.04-arm	45.31% <0.00%> (+0.15%)	⬆️
unit ubuntu-latest	46.00% <0.00%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
unit windows-latest	45.09% <0.00%> (+0.12%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[matejvasek]

@lkingland @gauron99 do you recall why we would disable tls here? Tests maybe?

[davidhadas]

@Vi-shub welcome,
Why is the entire file show as different?
Are you replacing \n with \r\n or similar?
(If \r\n is the cause, I am surprised that we do not have a test for it)

Please recommit with one line changed.

As for the actual change - I see it was written like this 3 years ago (#1594) when first added and there is no comments about it in the PR besides the code comment. I suggest the func team review this and take a decision.

[gauron99]

do you recall why we would disable tls here? Tests maybe?

I dont remember this ever changing, might be older than my work here 😄

[Vi-shub]

@Vi-shub welcome, Why is the entire file show as different? Are you replacing \n with \r\n or similar? (If \r\n is the cause, I am surprised that we do not have a test for it)

Please recommit with one line changed.

As for the actual change - I see it was written like this 3 years ago (#1594) when first added and there is no comments about it in the PR besides the code comment. I suggest the func team review this and take a decision.

Thanks for catching that you’re right. The large diff was almost certainly from CRLF vs LF on my side (whole file re-normalized), not an intentional reformat. I have reset pkg/git/github/github.go from main and recommitted so the change is only the InsecureSSL value (and I’ll double-check git diff before pushing).

Codecov should look sane once the diff is actually one line (or a single small hunk) instead of line-ending churn.

[Vi-shub]

@matejvasek @gauron99 can you review this please. Thankyou for your time :)

[lkingland]

/ok-to-test

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the GitHub webhook creation logic in pkg/git/github to default to secure TLS certificate verification when delivering webhooks to HTTPS payload URLs, aligning behavior with GitHub’s recommended insecure_ssl setting and addressing #3713.

Changes:

• Change repository webhook insecure_ssl default from "1" (skip TLS verification) to "0" (verify TLS) in Client.CreateWebHook.
• Remove the prior insecure default and associated inline TODO by making the secure behavior explicit.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[matejvasek]

/approve
/lgtm

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: matejvasek, Vi-shub

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [matejvasek]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment