Token urls

[zerolab]

This PR replaces #38 and fixes linting/test issues

[zerolab]

@willbarton this is rebased on main, linted and the GitHub Action has GITHUB_TOKEN (https://github.com/cfpb/wagtail-sharing/blob/main/.github/workflows/test.yml#L75) but it still seems to fail on coveralls.

Looking at the docs, it seems they now recommend using https://github.com/marketplace/actions/coveralls-github-action and I wonder if that is the issue

[zerolab]

@chosak anything else to do on this? Would love to see it in, if you'll have it

[zerolab]

this could potentially go to extras_require

extras_require = {
    "tokens": ["pyjwt>1.7,<2.5"]
}

[nickmoreton]

@zerolab FYI we just did some work on #61 for Wagtail 4.2

The same coverage fails are present: https://github.com/nickmoreton/wagtail-sharing/actions/runs/4165089219

[zerolab]

The main blocker to getting this in is the user experience. e.g. can we make the sharing site optional when using token urls? is the wagtail_urls step still required? how do we explain the difference to users.

We had a catch up with @chosak towards the end of last year. I've been thinking of it and I wonder if want to split it up, and keep things light and focussed

[chosak]

Coming back to this from @nickmoreton's reminder on #69 (comment):

As @zeolab mentioned above, I'm a little unsure whether token URLs make sense alongside the existing sharing site approach or if what you have implemented there is actually mostly independent of our main wagtail-sharing use case. Our use case is as documented, letting e.g. https://draft.example.com/something/ show the draft version of the page at https://www.example.com/something/. The token URL approach instead seems to support https://www.example.com/drafts/?path=jwt - so the URL doesn't have to have the right page path or even use a sharing site at all. In that case I'm guessing the main value this package provides to you is the custom route logic here that lets you get at unpublished pages? And maybe the banner that indicates that you're viewing a draft?

If that's the case, I wonder if you could look at or comment on the issue I opened at wagtail/wagtail#10193 that asks whether there's some kind of standard way this logic could be introduced into Wagtail proper. We could definitely merge this here and have wagtail-sharing work in two mostly-unrelated ways that happen to share a bit of common logic. But it'd be nicer not to have to do that if there were some standard hook in Wagtail for doing this kind of thing.

[zerolab]

@chosak I've added wagtail/wagtail#10193 to the next core meeting agenda.
I think the pragmatic thing to do in the interim is to create a fork that deals exclusively with the token URLs, with your permission. This way we don't have this long running PR, and we have a clear separation of concerns until we move wagtail/wagtail#10193 forward