This makes it consistent that an option which contains more options has
a hint about how many options it contains.
Also adds a formatter to get us ready for 1,000 services 🎉
Most users don’t have multiple contact blocks. So by default it should
feel like you’re just editing the one contact block, rather than
managing a collection of them. So this page skips the ‘choose’ page when
the user doesn’t yet have any contact blocks.
Also add more tests for showing or not the cancel those letters link
Also check if all notifications already in database
Upgrade delete button text logic to handle more cases
Also corrections following review
It looks weird to have two different visual treatments for showing a
navigable hierarchy.
I reckon losing the slash won’t make things less folder like – Windows
for example uses chevrons as foler separators.
It was a bit inconsistent depending on whether there was/wasn’t a search
box or channel tabs on the page.
I found this just too complicated to do in pure CSS, so added a new
spacing class which gets toggled on and off.
Currently we set not-very-useful defaults for organisation type and
crown status when creating an organisation. This commit adds two field
to the form (in addition to the existing name field) to explicitly ask
for:
- organisation type
- crown status
We need these for all organisations before we can make any of their
services live.
This commit also records any new organisation as not having accepted the
data sharing and financial agreement, because if we don’t know about the
organisation already then they definitely won’t have signed it.
A user might not have a guessable organisation type, even if the service
they’re working on does have an organisation set. This can happen for
users with @nhs.net email addresses, for example.
If we’re not sure whether a user belongs to a crown organisation or not
we want to fix that before.
This is a last-ditch fallback because we shouldn’t be adding new
organisations without also setting their crown status.
Organisation team members only have access to the dashboard if they’re
also a member of that service.
They always have access to the usage page, so let’s link there instead.
When someone selects that they are accepting the agreement on behalf of
someone else then they need to provide that person’s details. Otherwise
they shouldn’t care about these extra fields.
This commit uses the progressive disclosure pattern from the GOV.UK
Frontend Toolkit to hide the additional fields unless someone selects
the relevant radio button.
At the moment, the process for accepting the data sharing and financial
agreement is:
1. download a pdf
* print it out
* get someone to sign it
* scan it
* email it back to us
* we rename the file and save it in Google Drive
* we then update the organisation to say the MOU is signed
* sometimes we also:
* print it out and get it counter-signed
* scan it again
* email it back to the service
Let's not do that any more.
When the first service for an organisation that doesn't have the
agreement in place is in the process of going live, then they should
be able to accept the agreement online as part of the go live flow. This
commit adds the pages that let someone do that.
Where the checklist shows the agreement as **[not completed]** then
they can follow a link where they can download it (as happens now).
From here, they should then also be able to provide some info to accept
it. The info that we need is:
**Version** – because we version the agreements occasionally, we need to
know which version they are accepting. It may not be the latest one if
they downloaded it a while ago and it took time to be signed off
**Who is accepting the agreement** – this will often be someone in the
finance team, and not necessarily a team member, so we should let the
person either accept as themselves, or on behalf of someone else. If
it's on behalf of someone else we need to the name and email address of
that person so we have that on record. Obvs if it's them accepting it
themselves, we have that already (so we just store their user ID and
not their name or email address).
We then replay the collected info back in a sort of legally
binding kind of way pulling in the organisation name too. The wording
we’re using is inspired by what GOV.UK Pay have. Then there’s a big
green button they can click to accept the agreement, which stores their
user ID and and timestamp.
