The API needs the id of the user, not the id of the invite.
The problem with the tests is that the update mock returned a different
user ID than the user it was being passed. So the tests didn’t catch
this.
This fixes the bug where if you have three placeholders:
> ((one)) ((two)) ((three))
The first one you are asked to fill in is `((three))` (ie
`template.placeholders[-1]`).
This reintroduces a bug where if you use the ‘Use my phone number’ link
you skip straight to filling in `((two))` and can never proceed because
you’re never given the chance to fill in `((one))`. This commit also
fixes that bug.
If the user wants to go back from here they need to be sent back to the
start of entering the placeholders, because we won’t have their previous
personalisation in the session still
I think the back link on this page was introduced by accident. But it’s
good to still have it on this page, because it keeps consistency with
the previous pages.
Users can only be archived by Platform Admin from the user page
(/users/<user_id>). This removes them from all services and orgs and
updates their details.
The ‘make this default’ checkbox should be shown, except when:
- the user is adding their first email reply to address (because the
first one has to be the default)
- they’re editing the existing default (because they can’t change it
to be not default)
the api always returns exactly:
```
id
name
email_address
auth_type
current_session_id
failed_login_count
logged_in_at
mobile_number
organisations
password_changed_at
permissions
platform_admin
services
state
```
it does this through `models.py::User.serialize` – there is an old
Marshmallow `user_schema` in `schemas.py` but this isn’t used for
dumping return data, only parsing the json in the create user rest
endpoint.
This means we can rely on these keys always being in the dictionary.
Our other models inherit from `JSONModel`, rather than manually doing
lookups of the JSON in the `__init__` method. This commit changes the
user model to work in the same way.
I had to add a new concept (`DEFAULTS`) to account for some properties
not always being present in the (mocked) JSON. In reality it might be
that the API does always return these values. This should be looked at
in future work, to see which defaults can be safely removed. At least
now they:
- do not mean any changes are needed to the existing tests
- are explicitly separated from the attributes that we do expect to
always be in the JSON response
The data flow of other bits of our application looks like this:
```
API (returns JSON)
⬇
API client (returns a built in type, usually `dict`)
⬇
Model (returns an instance, eg of type `Service`)
⬇
View (returns HTML)
```
The user API client was architected weirdly, in that it returned a model
directly, like this:
```
API (returns JSON)
⬇
API client (returns a model, of type `User`, `InvitedUser`, etc)
⬇
View (returns HTML)
```
This mixing of different layers of the application is bad because it
makes it hard to write model code that doesn’t have circular
dependencies. As our application gets more complicated we will be
relying more on models to manage this complexity, so we should make it
easy, not hard to write them.
It also means that most of our mocking was of the User model, not just
the underlying JSON. So it would have been easy to introduce subtle bugs
to the user model, because it wasn’t being comprehensively tested. A lot
of the changed lines of code in this commit mean changing the tests to
mock only the JSON, which means that the model layer gets implicitly
tested.
For those reasons this commit changes the user API client to return
JSON, not an instance of `User` or other models.
This code wasn’t taking into account that you might have sent letters
in the month.
The dash is only there to space out months which don’t have any usage
in them.
Got some advice from the content community:
> I don't think we have a style on this - it doesn't really come up on
> GOV.UK mainstream.
>
> In your example, I'd go with something like 'less than £250 before
> VAT' or 'less than £250 (not including VAT)' to make it as clear as
> possible. Would that work?
I’ve gone with ’less than £250 (before VAT)’. I noticed that elsewhere
we’ve said ‘Each message costs 1.58 pence (plus VAT)’ so that feels
fairly consistent.
Pages within a service use a 2/8, 5/8, 1/8 grid.
The content pages use a 1/4, 3/4 grid, for consistency with the product
page template.
But I feel like the internal consistency is more important, and it feels
weird for the main content column to jump about.
So that you don’t have to use the footer navigation to switch between
these related pages. Matches the template we use for organising
features-related content.
