If a new user is being invited for a service which doesn't have edit
folder permissions turned on, we want to send all folders for that
service to api.
Added a folder permissions form to the page to invite users to services.
This only shows if the service has 'edit_folder_permissions' enabled,
and all folder checkboxes are checked by default. This change means that
InviteApiClient.create_invite now sends folder_permissions through to
notifications_api (so invites get created with folder permissions).
Started passing the folder_permissions through to notifications-api when
accepting an invite. This changes UserApiClient.add_user_to_service to
send folder_permissions to notifications_api so that new users get folder
permissions when they are added to the service.
In the short term I have created a duplicate version of the letter-validation-preview so that people from a service can upload a pdf and see why the letter isnot validating.
It's hard to get a precompiled letter to validate when starting to integrate with Notify. This will return the overlay of the letter validation and is now available to the services.
At the moment they send us a PDF to upload.
This is temporary because there is a story to create a one-off flow to get this overlay, that will replace this page.
There is no navigation to this on purpose.
When we get a request for new branding it’s helpful to quickly see what
the service’s current branding is, so we can get a better sense of why
they want to change it.
This adds a filter by user permissions to the list of template folders
displayed in:
* the 'choose a template page'
* "Move to" form to choose a destination folder
* "Copy an existing template" selection form
Integrates the folder permissions form with the updated API endpoint
to store changes in the user folders.
Since user folder permissions are returned in the full list of template
folders for the service we need to invalidate the cache key for it each
time we update user permissions.
We're reusing the logic for the `move_to` nested radios field for the
user folder permissions nested checkboxes.
The main difference between the two forms (aside from the different
input type) is that "Move" form contains the root "Templates" as an
option, whereas the folder permissions doesn't.
It turns out that, because of the way NestedFieldMixin.children and
select_nested macro are implemented the easiest way to get the desired
folder permissions behaviour is to add the root folder as a choice with
a `None` value and `NONE_OPTION_VALUE = None` set on the field, which
allows the `child_map` to be constructed but doesn't display the root
folder checkbox itself since it gets overwritten in the final `child_map`.
For the template folders permission editing we need a nested
checkboxes form that is similar to "move folder" input, except
it's using checkboxes instead of radio buttons.
This moves most of the macros into a shared "select-input" components
file, which are wrapped by the existing radios.html by setting the
required input type.
At the moment it 500s because it can’t format the `None` values as
numbers.
In the future we will stop people requesting to go live until they’ve
provided this info. For now it has to be optional.
Things we talked about:
• asking users to write the number 'as numerals' or 'using digits' isn't
very plain English
• the style guide says to use an example in the error `..., like 5,000`
but not if you have an example in the hint text, so we can't do that
• I have reservations about 'correct format', because it sounds odd if
you're not describing something like a phone number, NI number or
credit card number.
Looking back through Request to Go Live tickets on Zendesk.
---
I got to September before I found anything that would count as invalid
under our new rules:
> Possibly around 1,000,000- not planning on implementing emails yet but
might change
I'll keep looking, but if most people enter the number according to the
hint example we might be able to go with a much simpler error just
prompting them to enter a number – no convoluted descriptions of what we
mean by a number
There seemed to be more problems when the Qs were about start volume and
peak volume. Users felt the need to explain their plans more.
Using 'number' instead of 'volume' is more explicit too – so that
probably helps.
In terms of errors:
`Enter the number of emails you expect to send`
`Enter the number of text messages you expect to send`
`Enter the number of letters you expect to send`
– will probably do it, right?
It’s annoying and very ‘computer says no’ to make people type `0` in a
box. We can see from our analytics that this error is affecting about 7%
of users trying to go live.
This commit relaxes the validation to only require a number greater than
1 for at least one of the questions.
It also lets people enter their numbers comma-separated – like our
examples suggest – but normalises them to integers before sending them
over to the API.
We get a bunch of requests to go live where people have told us they're
going to send email but there is no email reply-to address present.
These come from 2 scenarios:
1. when there are email templates, and no reply to address – but they
ignore the checklist
2. when there are no email templates (yet) but they provide anticipated
volumes for email
At the moment we only auto-check for a reply to address when they have
email templates. And because the question about anticipated volumes
follows the checklist, you'll get a checklist that passes (reply
addresses not required as no templates present) - but your future intent
that differs (reply address IS required because you have anticipated
volumes).
So let’s bring the request for anticipated volumes into the checklist,
that way we can dynamically add the requirement for a reply to address
if they say they will send email but don't have templates yet.
We should begin storing it in the database against the service to stop
people having to re-enter it each time they try to complete the go live
screens.
This also means moving the ‘consent to research question’ along with
the questions about volume, because
- we want people to answer both before going live
- we don’t want to clutter up the summary page by asking questions there
too
Currently when you load the ‘edit user’ page (which has a URL like
`/service/<service_id>/users/<user_id>`) we check that:
- you belong to the service represented by `service_id`
- you have permission to edit users on this service
We don’t check that:
- the user represented by `user_id` belongs to this service
This means that if you could somehow determine another user’s `user_id`
(which I don’t think is possible if you don’t already have the manage
service permission for that service) then you could:
- edit their permissions on your service (weird, but wouldn’t have any
effect)
- change their email address (bad)
This commit adds checks to return a `404` any time you’re looking at a
service and trying to do stuff to a user who doesn’t belong to that
service.
We can’t add this check to the API easily because there are still times
that we want to get/modify users outside the context of a service (eg
platform admin pages, or users who have no services).
When updating a user’s email address you currently get an validation
error if you save without changing it. Instead it should just obey your
command. And no need for the confirmation step because nothing is
actually changing.
