All of the mock / UI assertions in these tests are covered by the
tests above them - these tests were mostly targetting which options
were being shown, which we can check at a lower level.
This is much simpler than trying to test the function via the page,
although there are still two scenarios to test there:
- The page with radio buttons (using NHS as an example).
- The page with a text form (using "other" as an example).
In future work we could split this test in two to make it clearer
what it's trying to test. For now, this keeps the diff simple.
Previously we duplicated the "something else" email branding form
on its own page and embedded in the choices form (if it was the
only option). See [^1] for how this looks - it's inconsistent.
This DRYs-up the "something else" form by bypassing the choices
form when "something else" is the only option. I've also tweaked
the "Back" button to be consistent with this behaviour.
Making this change also simplifies the choices form, which we'll
be adding pool options to shortly. I'd like to make the letters
form consistent, but let's see how emails pan out first.
Note that the choices form will now show a single radio button if
"something else" is the only option. I think that's OK as nothing
will link to the page, and the form still works.
[^1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/4163#issuecomment-1050088088
We want to be able to set the free allowance for a service to 0, but the
form was not allowing this - it gave an error message of `Cannot be
empty`. This can be fixed by changing the WTForms validator from
`DataRequired` (which coerces 0 to falsey) to the `InputRequired`
validator.
This adds a preview of the current branding to users on the page where
they can select which new branding they want. Also includes a tiny
content change to match the new content doc for this story.
The pages you were redirected to if you selected either GOV.UK branding
or NHS branding used to give information about the branding and have a
button that submitted a Zendesk ticket. Now, we show a preview of the
new branding and the button applies it.
The `.email_branding_govuk` and `.email_branding_govuk_and_org` routes
shared a template since the content was the same - the only difference
was in the action of the button. However, since the pages will no longer
be so similar (e.g. the govuk page will show a preview) this splits them
up to use separate templates.
It may be the case that when the branding work is complete these pages
are fairly similar and we decided that one template between the two
endpoints is the best option again.
The endpoint to change the email branding to "GOV.UK" branding and
"GOV.UK and organisation" branding was the same but with a query string
used to determine which of the two options had been selected. This makes
them two separate endpoints, which makes the code a bit simpler and
hopefully means there is less chance of things not working as expected.
This changes the URLs for someone to request new email or letter
branding to match the new URLs we've agreed for the new email branding
changes. The old URLs are still in place for now too to keep backwards
compatibility.
It shouldn't be possible to view the page to confirm that you want a
particular type of email branding if that branding is not allowed for
your service. Although we don't show banned branding options on the
branding form, it would have been possible to visit the relevant URLs
directly.
We now give a `404` status page if you visit a page to select branding
that isn't allowed.
For the "Something else" branding form we want the form label to be the
title. This brings in the textarea component from GOV.UK Frontend in
order to do this since that contains code to set a the textarea label as
the page heading in an accessible way.
The rest of the textarea fields have not been switched to use the new
component yet.
We were showing the form to request email branding with a button which
submits your choice immediately. Now, we only submit the form
immediately if "Something else" is the only branding option available to
you. If you select any other radio button (or select "Something else"
when it's not the only option) we take you to another page which either
contains more information or a textbox to fill in the details for the
branding you want.
There is currently some duplication between the new pages and their
tests, but these will be changed in future versions of the work so will
start to differ more.
The existing tests were parameterized to contain the cases both where
the branding form is successfully submitted and those where it isn't. We
were using `pytest.mark.xfail` to check that the tests fail as expected
if there were errors on the form. However, since I'll be changing how
the form validation works, I want to make sure that these tests were
actually failing because of the form validation and not because of
another reason, such as a slight difference in Zendesk ticket output.
This creates separate tests for cases where data entered in the form
is invalid.
The endpoint used to handle both email and letter branding, but this
replaces `.branding_request` with `.email_branding_request` and
`.letter_branding_request` instead. This is in preparation for changing
how email branding works.
The `from_template` arg was only possible for letter branding, so I've
removed that from the `.email_branding_request` endpoint.
When checking the service or organisation name for uniqueness before
changing it, it would be necessary to exclude the current name from
this check. However now we are changing it immediately we don’t need
to guard around this behaviour of the uniqueness check.
So this commit removes the guard for both renaming a service and an
organisation.
Some tests use the `client` fixture but don’t call any of its methods.
The reason for doing this is because the test depends on something in
the request context.
This commit replaces all those instances with `client_request`, which
also sets the request context.
These tests are the last ones that still use the `client` fixture. By
replacing it with `client_request` we will be able to say that no tests
should be using the `client` fixture directly.
We have a `client_request` fixture which does a bunch of useful stuff
like:
- checking the status code of the response
- returning a `BeautifulSoup` object
Lots of our tests still use an older fixture called `client`. This is
not as good because it:
- returns a raw `Response` object
- doesn’t do the additional checks
- means our tests contain a lot of repetetive boilerplate like `page = BeautifulSoup(response.data.decode('utf-8'), 'html.parser')`
This commit converts all the tests which had a `client.login(…)`
statement to use `client_request` (which is already logged in by
default).
Subsequent commits will remove uses of `client` in other tests, but
doing it this way means the work can be broken up into more manageable
chunks.
We have a `client_request` fixture which does a bunch of useful stuff
like:
- checking the status code of the response
- returning a `BeautifulSoup` object
For most tests of a platform admin view we used `platform_admin_client`
instead. This is not as good because it returns a raw `Response` object
and doesn’t do the additional checks.
This commit converts all the tests using `platform_admin_client` to:
use new `client_request` and log in as `platform_admin_user` before
making any requests.
This is also nice because it makes any test easy to parametrize with
additional users, for example to test differences in behaviour dependant
on being platform admin or not.
If there were multiple errors, this widget was joining the messages
together and displaying all error messages. If a text input field does
have more than one validation error, we only want to show one.
This adds a link to the user profile of the person who requested to go
live for "Request to go live" Zendesk tickets. Viewing a user's profile
page helps us to check for duplicate organisations and services from
that user.
The original idea behind was to always ask users to re-enter their
password any time:
- we want them to be sure that they want to do what they’re about to do
- we want to be sure it’s really the user trying to do the thing (and
not someone malicious)
In reality we:
- removed this from the initial place it was added (a descendent of the
‘suspend service’ feature)
- only ever added it to the ‘rename service’ feature
So in reality it’s not a pattern we have persisted with. Arguably there
are several things you can now do in the admin app without re-entering
your password which are much more high consequence than changing the
service name.
Also, with browser autofill there’s a lot less chance that forcing
someone to re-enter a password really gives much defence against an
unatteneded laptop, for example.
I also wonder whether we might get people to give better service names
if we make the process of renaming the service less intimidating.
So this commit removes the need to re-enter your password when renaming
a service.
Note that re-naming an organisation still has the same check, but I
haven’t removed that too for the sake of keeping scope of the PR small.
This moves things out of the parametrization that didn't need to be
in there and also makes the test match the test below,
test_shows_delete_link_for_error_on_post_request_for_edit_email_reply_to_address,
more closely.
https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/180026726
There was a bug where if you enter an invalid email address in
to the edit reply to email address form and click save, the
form you get shown with your error message will always contain
the field to set as default the reply to and also delete. This should
not have been the case. If you make an error on the form when
changing a reply to that is already a default, then you should not
be given the chance to change it to not default, nor should you
be able to delete it.
This commit fixes that bug by making sure the additional form fields
are only shown if the reply to being changed is not the default.
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.
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.
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.
Previously the backend would never validate permissions because the
"not service.active" part would (usually) fail. I've updated it to
match the (inverse of the) conditional we have in the HTML [1].
[1]: 6ac593aa5f/app/templates/views/service-settings.html (L455)
When the broadcast service settings form is submitted it now removes all
permissions for users in notifications-api. This means it should be
clearing the user cache.
