The layout for the platform admin base template needed to be changed so
that the back link appears in the same place as before.
Previously, the left hand nav was inside `<main>`, but that did not need
to be and was inconsistent with other pages, so has been taken out.
The page_header macro includes an optional back link. Since the
page_header is always used inside `<main>`, where the back link should
not be, this stops setting the back link in the page header and instead
sets it in the new `backLink` block.
This moves the back link to be above the `<main>` tag by making use of
the new `backLink` block. This doesn't change the pages which are using
a back link as part of the `page_header` macro yet.
This will be used to put the back link in, since it it is before the
`<main>` tag. We could have used the `beforeContent` block directly, but
that sometimes already has content in - this means it's not clear when
you also need to use `super()` inside the block and when you don't.
Relates to: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-govuk-alerts/pull/152
I ran the "create-broadcast-areas-db.py" script to regenerate the
Sqlite DB. Existing alerts with the old naming still appear correctly,
and since we don't (yet) store this text in the DB, there's nothing
more to update.
This renames the two functions we have to translate between UI and
DB permissions, as well as some of their associated variables to
make it clearer which kind of permission they contain.
We don't use this term consistently and it's not defined anywhere.
Since most of the Admin app deals with user-facing permssions, it's
OK to just use the term "permissions". Where both types of permission
are present in the same file, we can more clearly distinguish them
as "UI permissions" and "DB permissions".
These are more than a list of permissions: each item includes the
label to use when displaying it as an option on a form. Switching
to a name that reflects how the attributes are used will help to
avoid confusion when we rename some of the other attributes in the
same file in later commits.
These tests are unrelated to the others in test_permissions.py. We
should try and structure our tests the same as the code under test
so that it's clear where new tests should go.
This is so we can allow the sender name 'UC' for DWP.
Note, this is specifically only straight single quotes and not curly
quotes or double quotes. Curly quotes are not supported in the GSM
character set (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_03.38). There is
currently no defined user ask to support double quotes in sms sender
names.
I have tested this by sending a message through both Firetext and MMG to
make sure they both support the single quote character in SMS sender
names.
DWP also have had no particular issues using the SMS sender name with
their existing system in the past either.
No reason this shouldn't be parametrized. It will be neater, more
extendable and give better error messages
No functionality change, however I did slightly adapt one or two of the
test cases (for example to change the 11 characters or fewer test to
test on the boundary with 12 characters rather than many more).
Previously, to get the the `.approve_broadcast_message` endpoint, we
were issuing a POST request to `.view_current_broadcast`. The
`.view_current_broadcast` only has a GET endpoint defined for the
`/services/<uuid:service_id>/current-alerts/<uuid:broadcast_message_id>`
route, so the request would end up at the `.approve_broadcast_message`
which defines the POST endpoint for that path.
This changes the tests to POST directly to `.approve_broadcast_message`
to avoid confusion.
The 'New alert' button was being tested in the same tests as the tests
for the page content for the broadcast dashboards. Now that you only see
the button if you have the `create_broadcasts` permission, this adds a
new test just for the button so that the test for the page content can
be used for both broadcast permissions.
This wasn't adding anything now that we have two new and more specific
fixtures, `active_user_create_broadcasts_permission` and
`active_user_approve_broadcasts_permission`, that can be used instead.
`manage_templates` has now been removed from the `create_broadcasts`
permission, so this also adjusts the fixture for a user who can create
broadcasts.
The `send_messages` permission has been deprecated for use with
broadcast services, so we can drop support for it in the code. We
were supporting both the old permissions and new permissions
(`create_broadcasts` and `approve_broadcasts`) while we switched people
over.
This removes `send_messages` from the `user_has_permissions` decorator
around the broadcast routes and from the page to view a broadcast and
broadcast dashboards. We can now git rid of a lot of the parameterization
that was temporarily added to the tests.
At the moment we say that you either ‘add’ an alert or ‘send’ it.
This is confusing because:
- an alert isn’t received on people’s phones until it’s approved, so
this is really when it is ‘sent’ conceptually
- an alert can be rejected before anyone receives it, so the UI can say
an alert that no-one ever received was sent
This commit re-labels things so that the the first part of the process
is ‘creating’ the alert.
This makes all the permissions nice and distinct from each other. Adding
templates and adding alerts feel conceptually quite different things
(what are you adding the alert to?).
It will likely be the same people who have permission to create alerts
and edit templates (maybe someone in a comms role).
But combining the two permissions makes the options presented in the
form feel clunky because ‘alerts’ and ‘templates’ are conceptually quite
different.
So I think it makes sense to keep the templates permission the same as
it is for regular Notify services.
We don’t restrict the column width on the invite user page. Having it
restricted makes the hint text wrap awkwardly when editing users on an
Emergency Alerts service.
By removing the grid column the hint text looks better.
This matches what’s in requirements.in, but the Pyup comments don’t
automatically get copied when generating requirements.txt. This causes
Pyup’s safety CI to complain we’re using a version with a known
vulnerability (which doesn’t affect us since we don’t use websockets).
previously we'd skip the template page entirely if someone didnt have
manage templates/api keys permission. however, if the template is
deleted you'd then go through the flow entering placeholders and stuff
before it would then crash when trying to send.
instead, just bounce the user to the template page. It has the content
and says when the template was deleted.
This is useful information to store for the event, which would be
lost if someone subsequently changed them.
Rather than updating lots of mock assertions, I've replaced them
with a single test / assert at a lower level, which is consistent
with auditing being a non-critical function.
I've used the term "admin_roles" in the event data to try and show
that these are not the permissions we store in the DB. This is the
name we use for the abstracted form of permissions in the Admin app.
While we could store the DB permissions, that would be a bit more
effort and arguably it's clearer to keep the event data consistent
with the options the user actually saw / chose.
Usually we have imports at the top. It looks like the reason for
them being inline was to avoid a circular import, but we can also
avoid this by not importing everything from the app module.
Since we're about to add more imports from event_handlers, now is
a good time to refactor them. Note this matches how we import the
event handlers in every other module.
The buttons and links on this page now work with the original
permissions and the two new broadcast permissions. Since the new
broadcast permissions have the effect of splitting the `send_messages`
permission this means that additional sections of if/else logic were
required.
