This is currently spelt incorrectly though it
seemed to work nonetheless. Can only assume this
is a common error, for this attribute or all
attribute names, so browsers work it out.
This makes the spelling match the spec:
https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#aria-describedby
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 way we're using the updateContent.js code is
slightly different to expected and to the
scenarios in our tests. This changes the
tests to match that use.
The expected behaviour was for updates to a
module's HTML to happen to the HTML inside of the
div[data-module=update-content] element.
So with initial HTML of:
<div data-module="update-content" data-key="one">
<div class="ajax-block-container">
Existing content
</div>
</div>
...should be updated to be:
<div data-module="update-content" data-key="one">
<div class="ajax-block-container">
New content
</div>
</div>
Instead the HTML returned by the AJAX requests
replaced the div[data-module=update-content]
element.
So with initial HTML of:
<div data-module="update-content" ..>
<div class="ajax-block-container">
Existing content
</div>
</div>
...will be updated to be:
<div class="ajax-block-container">
New content
</div>
This doesn't seem to create any noticable changes
to the visual interface so, I think, went
unnoticed. The assumption I am making, of this
being unintended, is based on the fact that the
div[data-module=update-content] element has an
aria-live attribute, which authors would normally
want to stay in the page when updates happen.
Note: This commit doesn't try and fix the problem,
as the behaviour still largely works and the lack
of aria-live actually seems to be a positive
thing, meaning non-visual users aren't told of
every update but can discover it themselves if
needed.
A while ago diffDOM moved its code to use ES6
modules and started using various language
features specific to ES6. These two things
happened independently btw.
The result of this is that the version of diffDOM
suitable for our build pipeline, structured as an
immediately invoked function evocation (IIFE),
now requires polyfills of some ES6 features to
work in the older browsers we support, like IE11.
It's also worth noting that in the move to ES6
the maintainers of diffDOM have adopted a process
whereby users who need to support older browsers
now have to add polyfill code for any ES6 features
they choose to use.
This commmit proposes a move to the domdiff
library instead because:
- it runs on all javascript runtimes with no
polyfills
- it is 2KB instead of diffDOM's 25KB
Domdiff takes a different approach to diffDOM, in
that it compares existing nodes and new nodes and
replaces the existing ones with the new ones if
there are differences. By contrast, diffDOM will
make in-place changes to nodes if there are enough
similarities. In other words, in most situations,
diffDOM won't change the node in $component
whereas domdiff will.
Because of this, I've had to change the
updateContent.js code to cache the data-key
attribute's value so we don't lose access to it by
overwrite the $component variable with a different
jQuery selection.
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.
turns out that we're only using errorBanner with a static message, and
it's also full of rich html content. This means that it's probably
better to put it in the html templates with other content, rather than
hidden away in js files if we can help it.
Since there are two places, had to dupe the error message but i think
that's fine as i don't anticipate this error message being used in
significantly more places.
making it a string is a bit gross and means we don't get nice syntax
highlighting on it, but as it needs to be passed in to a jinja macro
that's the way it has to go unfortunately.
the banner is a nicer user experience, and consistent with how we
display errors elsewhere in notify. For now pass through the error
message from JS, but we'll probably want to change that since the erorr
messages themselves are often a bit cryptic and unhelpful
this ensures it's reusable by other components, and easier to unit test
by isolating the separate concerns
note: this is not in Modules since that's designed for classes that are
then bound to an element in the DOM as indicated by a data-module
attribute. This will just live at the window.GOVUK level since we want
there to only ever be one `.banner-dangerous` warning.
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.
Depends on: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-api/pull/3314
Previously:
- We introduced a new "areas_2" API field that's can
populate the "areas" column in the same way.
- We updated the Admin app to use the new field, so that
the old "areas" and "simple_polygons" API fields are unused.
- We repurposed the unused "areas" API field to use
the new "areas_2" format.
This PR:
- We can switch the Admin app back to the "areas" field,
but in the new format.
Future PRs:
- Remove support for the unused "areas_2" field (migration complete)
These will be used as a fallback for display in gov.uk/alerts. It
also helps to have them in the DB to aid in quickly identifying
where an alert was sent, which is hard from the IDs.
We will look at backfilling names for past alerts in future work.
Resolves: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/3980#discussion_r692919874
Previously it was unclear what kinds of areas this method returned,
and whether there would be any duplicates (due to the hierarchy of
areas we work with). This clarifies that.
In addition, the areas returned may not overlap with the custom one
[1], so we should reword to avoid falsely implying that. We could do
the overlap check as part of the method as an alternative, but that
would create extra work when calculating the ratio of intersection.
We could always add "overlapping areas" as a complementary method to
this one in future.
[1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/3980#discussion_r692919874
Previously we were passing a flag to the API which handled this. Now
we are doing it at the time of clicking the link, not at the time of
storing the new password. We don’t need to update the timestamp twice,
so this commit removes the code which tells the API to do it.
Accepting an invite means that you’ve just clicked a link in your email
inbox. This shows that you have access to your email.
We can make a record of this, thereby extending the time before we ask
you to revalidate your email address.
When someone uses a fresh password reset link they have proved that they
have access to their inbox.
At the moment, when revalidating a user’s email address we wait until
after they’ve put in the 2FA code before updating the timestamp which
records when they last validated their email address[1].
We can’t think of a good reason that we need the extra assurance of a
valid 2FA code to assert that the user has access to their email –
they’ve done that just by clicking the link. When the user clicks the
link we already update their failed login count before they 2fa. Think
it makes sense to handle `email_access_validated_at` then too.
As a bonus, the functional tests never go as far as getting a 2FA code
after a password reset[2], so the functional test user never gets its
timestamp updated. This causes the functional tests start failing after
90 days. By moving the update to this point we ensure that the
functional tests will keep passing indefinitely.
1. This code in the API (91542ad33e/app/dao/users_dao.py (L131))
which is called by this code in the admin app (9ba37249a4/app/utils/login.py (L26))
2. 5837eb01dc/tests/functional/preview_and_dev/test_email_auth.py (L43-L46)
