Changes those fields in the following forms:
- SearchByNameForm
- SearchUsersByEmailForm
- SearchUsersForm
- SearchNotificationsForm
Includes changes to templates that use this form
and associated tests.
When using `with pytest.raises...` any assertions inside the `with`
statement that occur below the line that raises the exception don't get
called. It's not possible to check the response status_code / location
in this test because an exception is raised before the response is
returned.
A user can't be archived if they are the only member of their service
with `manage_settings` permission. `notifications-api` returns a `400`
and an error message if that is the case, however this PR to remove the
`400` error handler
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/3320 stopped the
error message from showing. This meant that instead of seeing a message
about why a user couldn't be archived, we would just show a `500` error
page instead. This change checks the response from `notifications-api`
and shows an error banner with a message if the user can't be archived.
We mostly rely on the API returning a 404 to generate 404s for trying
to get things with non-UUID IDs. This is fine, except our tests often
mock these API calls. So it could look like everything is working fine,
except the thing your passing in might never be a valid UUID, and thus
would 404 in a non-test environment.
So this commit:
1. uses the `uuid` URL converter everywhere there’s something that looks
like an ID in a URL parameter
2. adds a test which automates checking for 1.
of course it's logged in, it's a platform admin
also, reduce use of the `client` fixture in test_platform_admin
(replace it with platform_admin_client)
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 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.
Two tests retained the old syntax because of mocker conflict:
when logging in as a user through client_request, it sets up a
side_effect on user_api_client.get_user to the user you log in
as. If you later want to set return_value for get_user to
something else, problems start :d.
- name
- email
- phone number
- services
- last login
- failed login attempts if any
The view can be accessed from results of find_users_by_email
logged_in_at added to User serialization on admin frontend as
a part of this work
This included:
- creating a new form SearchUsersByEmailForm with validation
on its search field
- introducing 400 status to the view if the form does not validate
- fixing the POST request data structure in the tests (it was
incorrect before and uncaught due to lack of validation and mocking
the response from the API.
