If someone has duplicate recipient columns in their file we don’t know
which one to use. This commit adds an error message which should help
them fix the duplication.
This commit doesn’t go to the extra effort to actually show the
correct values for duplication in the preview. Don’t think it’s worth
the effort/complexity for how infrequently we’ve seen this error.
Depends on:
- [ ] https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-utils/pull/376
The free allowance affect the number of free text messages a services get per yer.
This allowance is being set properly when an organisation is created by not updated.
This PR updates the free allowance when the organisation type is updated.
The free allowance can also be changed if service has an exceptional free allowance.
Since we send all one off messages as priority now[1], we don’t need to
explicitly mark this template as being priority.
This stops the (potential) problem of people skipping the tour, still
having this template and then modifying it to send other messages,
potentially in high volumes from CSV files or the API. I don’t think
this is a real problem now, but worth cleaning this up.
Currently:
- 827 priority templates in the database
- 195 of which are not deleted
- 18 of which are not called ‘Example text message template’
- 3 of which look like genuine use cases, not from services that we run
[1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-api/pull/1722
Excel stores dates as floating point numbers, counting the days (or
fraction thereof) since 1900 (except when it counts from 1904).
However it also, incorrectly, recognises 1900 as a leap year. This means
that it’s ambiguous whether day 59 is February 28th, or February 27th,
depending if you’re counting up or down. In fact any number less than 60
is, therefore, ambiguous.
This shouldn’t really matter since no-one is going to be using dates in
the year 1900 in Notify messages. _Except_ when Excel misidentifies a
cell as containing a date. For example, if you have the number `9`
inside a cell, it means _house number 9_ if the next cell contains
_example_ street. but Excel is all like ‘oh they must want January 9th
1900!’ No. Bad Excel.
There’s not much we can do about this, but we can at least give people
an error message with the workaround, which is what this commit does.
Most of this commit message is paraphrased from:
http://xlrd.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dates.html
Having SMS senders that start with 00 can cause issues with Firetext due
to Firetext's validation rules, so we shouldn't allow SMS senders to start
with 00.
Firetext treats a double 00 at the start of the senderID as an international
prefix, so removes them. A sender of 00447876574016 would become 447876574016.
Under Firetext's validation rules, an SMS sender of five 0s (00000) would
become 4400. This is because the first 00 are removed (as the international
prefix). The third 0 is seen as the start of a phone number, and becomes 44,
leaving the final 00 = 4400.
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
Users who have the ‘manage API keys’ permission can see the settings
page. But they don’t have permission to request to go live.
At the moment they can still see the link, though clicking it gives them
a 403 error. This commit changes it so that they can’t see the link, and
tells them who they should speak to about going live (their manager).
A lot of users aren’t reading or paying attention to the checklist on
the request to go live page. We think that we can get more people to
read it by putting it on its own page, where users won’t jump straight
to filling in the form.
This will, later on, let us make this page smarter by automatically
detecting if they’ve done the necessary things.
previously we were just using the wtforms builtin email validator,
which is much more relaxed than our own one. It'd catch bad emails when
POSTing to the API, resulting in an ugly error message. It's easy work
to make sure we validate email addresses as soon as they're entered.
It’s weird that `/services/<service_id>` returns `404`. The home page
for every service is the dashboard – should be possible to get there
from any other page just by stemming the URL.
Also makes it consistent with organisations, which will have
`/organisations/<org_id>`.
Notifications-api now needs the service_id to check the uniqueness of
the service name when trying to change it. This is to allow a user to
successfully change the pluralization or the case of their service name.
Both `<button type='submit'>Submit<button>` and
`<input type='submit' value='Submit'>` can be used to submit a form.
We have historically[1] used `<input>` because it’s better-supported by
IE6 in that:
- the `submit` attribute is mandatory on `<button>`, not on `<input>`
- the `innerHTML` of a button will be submitted to the server, not the
value (as in other browsers)
Reasons to now use `<button>` instead:
- IE6/7 support is no longer a concern (especially with deprecation of
TLS 1.0 on the way)
- Because an `<input>` element can’t have children, the pseudo-element
hack[2] used to ensure the top edge of the button is clickable doesn’t
work. We’re seeing this bug[3] affect real users in research.
1. We inhereted our buttons from Digital Marketplace, here is me making
that change in their code: 8df7e2e79e (diff-b1420f7b7a25657d849edf90a70ef541)
2. 24e1906c0d (diff-ef0e4eb6f1e90b44b0c3fe39dce274a4R79)
3. https://github.com/alphagov/govuk_elements/issues/545
We have a team who want their (short) web address as the text message
sender. This commit updates the validation of text message senders to
allow `.` as a valid character, which is currently blocking them from
doing this.
We can be fairly confident this works because:
- the team are sending large volumes of messages already with their
existing provider
- we’ve tested it with all combinations of
- both our text message providers
- an Android phone and n iPhone
I personally think it’s more robust to have a test also cover the
counter-fact.
And it’s easy to understand what’s going on if you can see the valid and
invalid examples side by side.
Using a separate validator class to check for appropriate characters in
a text message sender means that we’re not doing this validation in a
different way from the other checks (length and required). So the code
is cleaner.
