This makes it clearer that this model collection isn’t the organisations
for a user or a service or some other entity, like most model
collections are.
It will also lets us make a separate Organisations model, without the
name conflicting.
This commits adds test coverage for ther HTML in several of the forms
which had broken autofocus.
It means that if we make changes to the HTML which triggers autofocus in
the future it should be more obvious that something is depending on the
attributes being added/removed.
This moves things out of the parametrization that didn't need to be
in there and also makes the test match the test below,
test_shows_delete_link_for_error_on_post_request_for_edit_email_reply_to_address,
more closely.
https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/180026726
There was a bug where if you enter an invalid email address in
to the edit reply to email address form and click save, the
form you get shown with your error message will always contain
the field to set as default the reply to and also delete. This should
not have been the case. If you make an error on the form when
changing a reply to that is already a default, then you should not
be given the chance to change it to not default, nor should you
be able to delete it.
This commit fixes that bug by making sure the additional form fields
are only shown if the reply to being changed is not the default.
This test is now failing due to the combination of both Werkzeug having
had a major version bump in a previous PR and the Python version
changing. Calling `current_service` is now giving an error when trying
to get the `service` from the `_request_ctx_stack` because
`_request_ctx_stack` has no `service` attribute. There was no error
before, so it appears some underlying behaviour has changed. I've fixed
the test by changing the setup, but there is no effect on production
code - when the app is running `load_service_before_request` is called
before every request.
The current link button for removing an area is
created using a psuedo element with an 'x' as
content.
The inline box for the 'x' overlapped its parent.
This is visible in high contrast mode, breaking the
parent's border. Despite existing in CSS, the 'x'
is also announced by screen readers, which is not
what we want.
This changes it to be an inline SVG with a role of
image. It doesn't require as large an inline box
so doesn't cause visual issues in high contrast
modes. It also means we can set it's label similar to
how you would an image's alt text, giving us
control over what is announced by screen readers.
This commit also includes some extra CSS,
targeting high contrast modes, giving the
link button the following when viewed in those
modes:
- a complete border so it is
distinguishable from the list item
- a focus style
`reference` isn’t very human-friendly – the Environment Agency just
supply a UUID in this field.
The Environment Agency also populate the `<event>`` field with some
human readable text, for example:
> 013 Issue Severe Flood Warning EA
(013 is an ‘area code’ which will be meaningful to the Flood Warning Service team)
This commit changes the frontend to display the value of the `cap_event`
field, if it’s present, which is where the API stores the value of the
`<event>` field from the original CAP XML.
***
Depends on:
- [x] https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-api/pull/3344/files
I recently found that there is a problem with the
overuse of lists online for sequences of content
that don't need to be in a list. I think that's
what we're doing with our map key.
The problem is large enough that browsers include
heuristics to determine if lists should be
presented as such to the accessibility API (and so
to assistive tech' like screen readers). This
thread contains more details:
https://twitter.com/cookiecrook/status/1337226933822603270
Based on the metric described in the thread:
'If all of the styles that make it “list-like”
have been removed, it’s no longer relevant to
convey it as a list.'
...or
'if a sighted user doesn’t need to know it’s a
list, why would a screen reader user need to know
or want to know?'
Based on that, I think the items in our map key
should be paragraphs, not items in a list.
Also, they read really well as sentences when
announced by a screen reader, partly because of
the extra (hidden) info @quis added to them.
This also doesn't change their visual appearance.
Since we’ve introduced the ‘on behalf of’ wording to the go live ticket
(to talk about who the agreement has been signed on behalf of) it’s
confusing to use the same terminology to talk about the organisation
for whom the agreement has been accepted.
Previously this test asserted on `current_user.is_authenticated`. That
isn’t possible now because the object imported into tests isn’t the same
one the app is using.
A different proxy for whether the user is signed in is whether they have
a user id in their session, because we set this every time they sign in:
ff32e73d9b/app/models/user.py (L162)
This is the newest version.
Pyup is complaining about vulnerabilities in version 1.0.1, specifically
> Werkzeug version 2.0.2 improves the security of the debugger cookies.
> "SameSite" attribute is set to "Strict" instead of "None", and the
> secure flag is added when on HTTPS.
Previously we were using whatever version of Werkzeug that Flask
specified this pins it to get rid of the vulnerability without having to
upgrade everything at once.
This requires a few changes to tests which were relying on importing
`session` and `current_user` from Flask. Previously it seemed that
importing these in the tests referred to the same object that was being
used in the app. This appears to no longer be the case. This commit
works around that by:
- using a context manager to get the contents of the session, like we
already do in most tests
- asserting that the mock which logs the user in is being called with
the right values, rather than looking at the state of the
`current_user` object (which was probably giving false certainty
anyway)
In https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/3663/files we
made specific routes for sending the ‘tour’ text message, rather than
sharing the ‘one-off’ routes in `send.py`.
This commit moves the final route in the tour journey into `tour.py` as
well, which is where I expected to find it when I was looking for it
just now.
The feedback endpoints use `ticket_type` to decide what to display and
whether or not a ticket should be escalated. We were using the
ticket_type as the value for the Zendesk ticket_type. However, the Zendesk
API accepts 4 values for its ticket_type and these are different from
the ticket_type values we use in our code.
This change converts the Notify ticket_type value to a valid Zendesk
ticket_type value when creating a Notify feedback ticket.
The new way of creating support tickets can be seen in
[notifications-utils](https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-utils/pull/899).
This changes tickets created when making a request to go live to use
the new way, while other tickets stay the same for now.
The go live tags have been removed. Some of these had become
unneccessary since you can't make the request to go live unless they are
true (e.g. `notify_go_live_email_reply_to`). Others will always get
added by a Zendesk macro when the ticket is replied to, so we don't need
to add them here.
the api returns UTC timestamps, we should keep them as UTC timestamps
until the very last moment, and only convert them into BST when we know
we want to return to a user (ie: in contact-list.html and other places
like that)
since we are hard-coding a generic error message on the front-end, we
have no need to do anything on the back end. This is also nice as it
standardises the two flows to behave more like each other (rather than
previously where one would `flash` an error message and the other would
return CBOR for the js to decode).
Note that the register flow returns 400 while the auth flow returns 403.
The js for both just checks `response.ok` so will handle both. The JS
completely discards any body returned if the status isn't 200 now.
Add additional instructions for the service name - this is more consistent with the local government version of this page
Also update tests to use the new content.
The original code to raise the exception was flawed: if a broadcast
only had a single area that was invalid, we would assume it was a
custom broadcast [1]. Since the recent changes [2] fixed the flaw
we're now getting exceptions for broadcasts of this kind.
It's not practical to go and manually fix the invalid broadcasts,
and the likelihood is there will be more in future as the set of
areas we support changes. This takes a pragmatic approach of simply
logging the issue and pretending such broadcasts are custom.
[1]: 926ada2f21
[2]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/4014/files#diff-2dd8f77d6df281e7674b20263cdf27a3d58b839dc5930c0087ac8b9749b313e4R92
Previously we relied on the API defaulting this field to an empty
array [1], but that conflicts with using it to decide whether a
broadcast is custom or created in this app.
[1]: 3779146cc5/app/models.py (L2342)
Custom broadcasts created directly via the API app won't have area
IDs since [1], where we started to distinguish between "names" (all
broadcasts have these) and IDs (for broadcasts created in this app).
We forgot to propagate the distinction into the code here.
This code fixes the bug for all broadcasts created after [1]. Any
custom broadcasts created before [1] will have their "ids" field set
instead of "names" so we won't show anything for them. This seems
reasonable as we don't support custom broadcasts yet.
[1]: 023a06d5fb
The aggregate names don't need to be sorted, but it helps to do
this for the tests, since the implementation of sets may not be
stable between machines and lead to sporadic test failures.
I did also toy with sorting granular area names so they have a
similar ordering, but this would take them out-of-order with IDs
and really the important thing is that the ordering is stable.
This applies some heuristics to try and keep the overall list of
areas short when many are selected in the same wider area.
Currently we only have relationship information between upper and
lower tier local authorities, so we can't / won't aggregate up to
Greater London (it's own special thing) or whole countries.
