Rather than force us to write the decorators in a specific order let’s
just have one decorator call the other. This should make fewer lines of
code, and fewer annoying test failures. It also means that the same way
of raising a `401` (through the `current_app` method) is used
everywhere.
so that platform admins (us) can view pages as regular users do easily.
Simply adds a flag in the session cookie that overrides the actual
platform admin flag on the user model if set. This way it's safe, since
this only downgrades existing functionality, so if someone managed to
alter it they could only get less permissions, not more.
You can change this value from the user profile page if either:
* you're a platform admin
* the flag is set (to any value) on the cookie.
This slightly weird check means that we don't check the underlying
`user._platform_admin` flag anywhere in the code, even when toggling
the suppression.
The data flow of other bits of our application looks like this:
```
API (returns JSON)
⬇
API client (returns a built in type, usually `dict`)
⬇
Model (returns an instance, eg of type `Service`)
⬇
View (returns HTML)
```
The user API client was architected weirdly, in that it returned a model
directly, like this:
```
API (returns JSON)
⬇
API client (returns a model, of type `User`, `InvitedUser`, etc)
⬇
View (returns HTML)
```
This mixing of different layers of the application is bad because it
makes it hard to write model code that doesn’t have circular
dependencies. As our application gets more complicated we will be
relying more on models to manage this complexity, so we should make it
easy, not hard to write them.
It also means that most of our mocking was of the User model, not just
the underlying JSON. So it would have been easy to introduce subtle bugs
to the user model, because it wasn’t being comprehensively tested. A lot
of the changed lines of code in this commit mean changing the tests to
mock only the JSON, which means that the model layer gets implicitly
tested.
For those reasons this commit changes the user API client to return
JSON, not an instance of `User` or other models.
Done using isort[1], with the following command:
```
isort -rc ./app ./tests
```
Adds linting to the `run_tests.sh` script to stop badly-sorted imports
getting re-introduced.
Chosen style is ‘Vertical Hanging Indent’ with trailing commas, because
I think it gives the cleanest diffs, eg:
```
from third_party import (
lib1,
lib2,
lib3,
lib4,
)
```
1. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/isort
* if the service issuing the invite does not have permission to edit
auth types, don't let them do anything. This will stop them turning
existing email_auth users back to sms auth
* if the user hasn't got a mobile number, but the invite is for sms
login, don't do anything either. They won't have a phone number if
they signed up via an email_auth invite previously.
in these cases, we accept the invite and add the user to the service
as normal, however, just don't update the user's auth type.
specifically, the 2FA page when you first create an account is different to the login 2FA page
and also the 2FA page when you change your phone number is different as well
This PR changes the flow to change an email address.
Once the user enter their password, they are told "Check your email".
An email has been sent to them containing a link to notify which contains an encrypted token.
The encrypted token contains the user id and new email address. Once the link is clicked the user's email address is updated to the new email address.
They are redirected to the /user-profile page.
Also in this commit is an update from flask.ext.login to flask_login.
- it tried to send a verify code which no longer is applicable
- one stage of process removed and tests update properly
Flow is:
- Change email
- Confirm with password
- Done
when visited sends sms code for second step of account verification.
At that second step user enters just sms code sent to users mobile
number.
Also moved dao calls that simply proxied calls to client to calling
client directly.
There is still a place where a user will be a sent a code for
verification to their email namely if they update email address.
This commit adds an extra page or field for confirming your current password
when making important changes
Name | Email address | Mobile number | Password
---------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------
No password required | As second page | As second page | On same page as new password
This commit adds a page or series of pages for changing your:
Name | Email address | Mobile number | Password
------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------
Enter new value | Enter new value | Enter new value | Enter new value
| Enter 2fa code | Enter 2fa code |
Return to profile | Return to profile | Return to profile | Return to profile
(each row is a page)
