It’s annoying and very ‘computer says no’ to make people type `0` in a
box. We can see from our analytics that this error is affecting about 7%
of users trying to go live.
This commit relaxes the validation to only require a number greater than
1 for at least one of the questions.
It also lets people enter their numbers comma-separated – like our
examples suggest – but normalises them to integers before sending them
over to the API.
We get a bunch of requests to go live where people have told us they're
going to send email but there is no email reply-to address present.
These come from 2 scenarios:
1. when there are email templates, and no reply to address – but they
ignore the checklist
2. when there are no email templates (yet) but they provide anticipated
volumes for email
At the moment we only auto-check for a reply to address when they have
email templates. And because the question about anticipated volumes
follows the checklist, you'll get a checklist that passes (reply
addresses not required as no templates present) - but your future intent
that differs (reply address IS required because you have anticipated
volumes).
So let’s bring the request for anticipated volumes into the checklist,
that way we can dynamically add the requirement for a reply to address
if they say they will send email but don't have templates yet.
We should begin storing it in the database against the service to stop
people having to re-enter it each time they try to complete the go live
screens.
This also means moving the ‘consent to research question’ along with
the questions about volume, because
- we want people to answer both before going live
- we don’t want to clutter up the summary page by asking questions there
too
Currently when you load the ‘edit user’ page (which has a URL like
`/service/<service_id>/users/<user_id>`) we check that:
- you belong to the service represented by `service_id`
- you have permission to edit users on this service
We don’t check that:
- the user represented by `user_id` belongs to this service
This means that if you could somehow determine another user’s `user_id`
(which I don’t think is possible if you don’t already have the manage
service permission for that service) then you could:
- edit their permissions on your service (weird, but wouldn’t have any
effect)
- change their email address (bad)
This commit adds checks to return a `404` any time you’re looking at a
service and trying to do stuff to a user who doesn’t belong to that
service.
We can’t add this check to the API easily because there are still times
that we want to get/modify users outside the context of a service (eg
platform admin pages, or users who have no services).
The endpoint for setting permissions in api will now be used for both
user permissions and a user's folder permissions, so this changes the
format of the data we pass through.
When updating a user’s email address you currently get an validation
error if you save without changing it. Instead it should just obey your
command. And no need for the confirmation step because nothing is
actually changing.
Most of the existing platform admin buttons on the service settings
page used to issue GET requests to switch service settings. This
means they weren't protected by CSRF. On top of that as our number
of service permissions increases over time a lot of buttons on the
page made it hard to work with.
To fix these issues we replace most of the buttons with rows in the
platform admin settings table. Each setting has a 'Change' link that
leads to a page with an On/Off switch form.
This removes "research mode" switch completely since we're planning
to deprecate it in the future and we don't expect to switch any new
services into research mode at the moment.
Most service permissions are now handled by a shared endpoint that
is parameterized with the permission name. Some permissions that
require some additional logic before they can be toggled (like document
upload, which requires setting a contact address) have separate
initial endpoints that redirect to `set_service_permission`.
"Archive", "Suspend" and "Resume" actions are kept as buttons since
they display a confirmation banner (which is a CSRF-protected form)
and they're not easily represented as an On/Off switch.
This adds a new OnOffField class that implements a boolean field
that is rendered as two On / Off radio buttons. This allows us to
avoid comparing 'on' and 'off' string values in the views since
the field takes care of transforming form data into python booleans.
This also adds a form class that can be used for any single On / Off
switch forms (e.g. service permissions).
The current user already has a list of service IDs. The current user
- is an API call we have to make anyway to render this page
- is usually cached in Redis
This adds a preview pane which is visible when updating a letter brand.
If JavaScript is enabled, the preview pane shows on the set-letter-branding
page, and submitting the form saves updates the letter brand for a service
immediately. If Javascript is not enabled, there is a separate 'Preview email
branding' page which shows a preview of the brand and has a 'Save' button on it.
I did the update following instructions from this commit:
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/
commit/136662bd309d986a9b7c3e0ee76588612c1ab761
Password repositiories I used were:
darkweb2017-top10000.txt
probable-v2-top12000.txt
twitter-banned.txt
when clients are defined in app/__init__.py, it increases the chance of
cyclical imports. By moving module level client singletons out to a
separate extensions file, we stop cyclical imports, but keep the same
code flow - the clients are still initialised in `create_app` in
`__init__.py`.
The redis client in particular is no longer separate - previously redis
was set up on the `NotifyAdminAPIClient` base class, but now there's one
singleton in `app.extensions`. This was done so that we can access redis
from outside of the existing clients.
The endpoint was removed, but was still linked to in a couple of
places. Some old links were no longer needed, so have been removed.
We do still need a link to `add_template_by_type` on the 'Choose reply'
page - this page is used to allow to let someone pick a template to
reply to inbound SMS with. Since the link only appears if they have no
SMS templates, we now link to `.choose_template` with the templates and
folders form already opened at the option to add a template.
The template list wasn’t getting the right class applied because the
check was referring to an undefined variable (`can_manage_folders`) that
should have been removed when all other references to it were.
