[pihole] Integration of API v6

[clinique]

Early push to inform that work has started
Resolves issue #16852

[magx2]

Hey, thanks for the implementation of v6. I had a quick look on my cellphone, tommorow I will take a deeper look at it (using my pc and IDE).

[clinique]

Thanks for you insights @magx2 . This is very early dev stage. My main concern is to find the equivalences between old API and the new one (I'm a recent user of Pi-hole). If there are not much, maybe I'll introduce a new Thing with a distinct channel set. Let me know your thoughts.

[clinique]

@magx2 : I'm on a good track. Still searching equivalencies for some of the channel contents (null values line 88 of bundles/org.openhab.binding.pihole/src/main/java/org/openhab/binding/pihole/internal/rest/JettyAdminServiceV6.java).
After that, I'll have to take care of 'sid' refresh and some code cleansing.

[miloit]

Any updates? @clinique

[clinique]

Hello @miloit , this PR is ready for review

[magx2]

Hello @miloit , this PR is ready for review

OH, I thought you are still working on it. Will take a look on it later this week

[magx2]

@clinique Looks fine for me. I did not run it with PiHole v6, but I assume that you did it and you can confirm it's working E2E

[clinique]

Yes, I do

[magx2]

LGTM

[magx2]

@lsiepel can you merge it? I do not have option to approve

[lsiepel]

@lsiepel can you merge it? I do not have option to approve

You can;t merge, but you should be able to approve when finishing the review:

Anyway, as soon as i have the time i'll review.

[magx2]

Apparently I can merge it, but I will leave it to you @lsiepel

[lsiepel]

Could you give it a shot ? (squash and merge as is selected) i'm puzzled you see this.

[magx2]

It worked

[lsiepel]

While this PR is merged fine and all is good. We are looking into why you where able to write to this repo.

[magx2]

Some time ago you've added me to maintainers

[lsiepel]

Some time ago you've added me to maintainers

That should have been contributors. Unless i have missed some kind of discsussion about this. :-)

[kaikreuzer]

Hey @magx2, thanks for letting us know!

That should have been contributors.

I guess @lsiepel is right - I have now just "downgraded" you to a member of the contributors team. This does not mean that your work is less appreciated, though - thanks for everything you do! 😄

[magx2]

No worries. I also felt uncomfortable because of all the power 😂

[Nadahar]

@clinique There's a potential issue here, although the circumstances don't make sense to me at this point: https://community.openhab.org/t/openhab-5-1-milestone-discussion/166385/233

I did some fighting with this issue earlier with UniFi Protect (as they also violate the HTTP spec here), as you can see in the linked forum post. What it boils down to is that Jetty handles (basic) authentication automatically for you, provided that the HTTP spec is followed. In particular, HTTP status 401 is required to carry a header that tells the client what authentication schemes are supported - which Jetty needs to attempt to resend the request in the proper form. If the server/device doesn't include information about supported authentication schemes, Jetty throws this exception because it don't know how to proceed. This also prevents the response from being processed normally.

The linked topic is very long, but the "fix" essentially boils down to disabling Jetty's automatic authentication handling: https://community.openhab.org/t/unifi-protect-binding-http-protocol-violation-authentication-challenge-without-www-authenticate-header/164289/6

This comes with the caveat that Jetty will no longer handle (basic) authentication automatically, but since these authentication schemes are rarely used these days, it might not actually matter.

Note: If automatic authentication handing is disabled, the binding can't use the shared HTTP clients 😉