If there is whitespace in the element containing the value to be copied
then Firefox[1] includes that space in the value it puts in the clipboard.
This is obviously annoying since `foo-bar` might be a valid API key where
`foo-bar ` is not.
This commit fixes that by using the `-` in Jinja to gobble whitespace.
I also looked at doing this in the Javascript, but the browser API for
selecting some text and copying it doesn’t give an obvious place for
using `String.prototype.trim()`.
1. Tested with Firefox 100.0 on Mac OS 12.2.1
When we changed the layout for each alert on the
current/past/rejected alerts pages to use flexbox,
we added a fallback for older browsers that set
text-align: justify on the container:
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/4171
This has led to items in the list of areas an
alert will be sent to being laid out as justified
content when they were left-aligned.
These changes set the correct alignment.
We can’t upgrade to Werkzeug 2.1.0 because the `BaseResponse` class
has been renamed. The old version of Flask we are using tries to import
`BaseResponse` causing an error.
See https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/issues/1963
We can’t upgrade to Jinja 3.1.0 because the `escape` module has been
moved to the `markupsafe` library. The old version of Flask we are
using tries to import `escape` from `jinja2`, causing an error.
See https://jinja.palletsprojects.com/en/3.1.x/changes/#version-3-1-0
At the moment if a user is pending we don’t show the ‘change’ link.
This is unhelpful because:
- there’s no way to remove this user
- there’s no way to change their phone number, if the reason that
they are still pending is because they’ve been unable to receive
the two factor code at the number they first provided
Direct string comparison in multiple places is prone to typos. It
also means that a consumer of the class needs to know that whether
a user is pending or active is held in the `state` property, which
is an implementation detail.
To keep the conditionals in the Jinja template more readable, this
commit moves the logic into a method on the model, where it can
be split over multiple statements and lines.
We fixed a problem with the focus styles of list
items in this pull request:
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/4141
This missed out pages for areas with counties in
them. This adds the fix to those pages.
These changes also include some extra spacing
between the end of the list and the button which
is lost by the new styles we're giving the list
items.
This goal wasn't clear from the original test, which was checking
the entire return value, even though this is covered implicitly by
tests of the usage page itself.
This doesn't need to test variable rates for every postage class,
which is more an aspect of grouping. It only needs to check that
some out-of-order usage gets reordered appropriately.
This is covered sufficiently by the main "test_usage" assertions,
which prove the usage is broken down by postage.
I don't think we need to explicitly test the usage is broken down
by month as we already prove this for SMS and we also check the
usage is associated with the correct month in the "ordering" test.
This did more than it said and had some unconventional behaviour:
- It modified the input data. We can avoid this by computing the
postage group on-the-fly and using "sorted" instead of "sort".
- It defined a custom, named tuple. This isn't necessary as Jinja
allows us to access elements by qualification (".") already.
We can also use the same lambda function to group and sort items,
since the sort predicate is the same one we use to group them.
This is now only used for letters and represents the number sent
[^1]. We could use the chargeable_units field, but using "_sent"
is more consistent with the annual attributes [^2].
In fact, chargeable_units isn't actually used anywhere, but I've
kept it in the test data as it is part of the real API and helps
clarify the other values for SMS - free vs. charged.
Note: for SMS I've used an arbitrary "1234" for "chargeable_units"
to indicate it's not used and may be different to the number sent -
for SMS it's related to the number of fragments.
[^1]: bb62d22f25/app/dao/fact_billing_dao.py (L339)
[^2]: 3a1ac189ff/app/main/views/dashboard.py (L339)
This starts using the sms_{cost, charged, free_allowance_used}
fields in the new API to replace the "get_free_paid_breakdown"
function we had before, which could not support multiple rates.
In order to use "get_free_paid_breakdown" the calling method had
to store a "cumulative" variable to calculate the free allowance
used so far, which is now done by the API.
To calculate the data for conftest.py, I had to start from the
bottom ("April") and manually calculate the free allowance used
to emulate the API - this is what "cumulative" used to do.
It has never been possible to get multiple rows for the same month
and rate. This was making it hard to switch to the new API fields,
which will require some manual calculations. I've added the billing
units together in the remaining data so the tests still pass.
I've also moved the "April" row to the end as it was out-of-order
with all the others: it's the _start_ of the financial year.
This is also an opportunity to DRY-up the filtering of usage by
month, which we will reuse in the following commits. Doing a sum
is simple enough that it can be done inline, avoiding indirection.
So we don’t have to deploy a change on a Saturday.
In the future this could pull from the rates in the database, but while
that code is shifting around I didn’t want to touoch it. We’d also have
to think about caching so as not to have a non-authenticated route
hitting the database.
Note: I've removed the pricing assertion in the "0_free_allowance"
test as it's covered elsewhere - the value of the test is really to
check that we don't show the remainder if there never was any.
The previous, manual calculation could be incorrect depending on
which SMS rates the free allowance was attributed to.
The new field also supersedes the old "letter_total" bolt-on so we
can get cost information consistently for both types.
This adds missing assertions for email and SMS usage, as well as
letters with the help of some additional test data.
Previously we were only checking monthly usage (in other tests).
The "with_letters" was mostly a duplicate of the one before - no
change in test setup - bar the three assertions at the end.
Having the assertions in a separate test will help keep the one
above manageable as we add more assertions for the annual usage.
This will make the following changes clearer.
In the next commits we'll go into more detail about "billing_units"
and how it differs for SMS vs. emails and letters.
