One of the big things we found in user research was that people were
uncertain what the effect of giving someone basic view was.
So in the spirit of ‘show don’t tell’, this commit adds a way for users
to preview basic view. They can go into the preview and click around as
much as they like, just as if they really had the basic view assigned to
them.
Once they have seen enough they can return to the settings page where
they can decide whether or not to switch basic view on for real.
Since platform admins can use the new settings page, this commit:
- links to that page
- removes the platform-admin-only endpoint that switches basic view on
and off
This commit adds radio buttons to the ‘basic view’ page. This will let
users choose whether basic view is on or off for their service.
As before, this page will only be linked to if a service already has
basic view, so this commit does not launch the new feature.
This commit adds:
- a row to the settings page…
- …which links to a page explaining what basic view is
The new row (and link) will only appear for services who already have
the feature switched on. This is because we are not launching the
feature yet, so it shouldn’t be available to just anyone.
Eventually the ability to have the caseworking view for your service
will be self-service. But while we’re still building it only we should
be able to enable it, for our own testing purposes.
So this commit adds platform admin functionality to switch the feature
on and off for our services.
Sometimes a user will hit the green button without actually changing
the service name (we saw this in a usability testing session).
Currently this gives an error saying ‘service name already in use’,
which is technically true (it’s in use by the current service) but
practically just annoying.
This commit adds some logic to silently ignore such requests.
When a platform admin user clicks on the button to add the
'upload_document' permission to a service, they should be taken to the
page to add a contact_link if the service does not already have one.
Added a page which lets users with the 'manage_service' permission change the
contact link for their service. There are no links to this page yet
since only services using document download will need to set a contact
link.
At the moment branding is an undocumented feature. We get a bunch of
support tickets from teams asking its possible.
This commit:
- lets people know it’s possible, and what the options are
- is the first step towards making this process as self-service as
possible
In some cases we will be able to infer a user’s organisation from there
email address, and Google image search their logo. So the experience for
them is that they press a button and government just sorts it out for
you (also known as "the dream").
In other cases we will have to get back to people asking for a copy of
their logo, or to find out about their service, but this is what we have
to do at the moment anyway.
Adds a platform admin button to the service settings to turn on/off
'upload_document' service permission. The permission allows uploading
documents to document-download-api through the post notification API
endpoint.
For both SMS senders and email reply to addresses this commit adds:
- a delete link
- a confirmation loop
It doesn’t let users delete:
- default SMS senders or reply to addresses (they always have to have
one)
- inbound numbers
It assumes that the API will allow updating of an attribute named
`active` on the respective database rows. It could work in a different
way. We can’t do complete deletion though because these will still be
keyed to notifications.
This question was designed to make people feel like it was OK to submit
their request without getting the MoU signed. We reckoned that this was
the fastest way of getting their service live (because the MoU is the
bit that’s most likely to slow them down).
We now have a better way of telling people:
- if they’ve signed the MoU already
- or to contact us if they haven’t (which is what the majority of teams
seem to do now)
We were never actually using the answer to this question – we were still
checking for every service whether they had it signed.
So this commit removes this now-redundant question.
We were counting users who had the `manage_settings` permission. This
is the old name for it, therefore there would never be any users with
this permission, so the tick would never go green.
The new name for the permission is `manage_service`. This commit fixes
the error, and adds an extra safeguard against something like this
happening again.
This makes it easier to write a good message in the request to go live
submission. And encapsulating it in the `GovernmentDomain` class keeps
the view nice and clean.
When we process a go live request it’s a pain to have to go fishing in
the Google Drive to see if there’s a signed agreement in there. This
should make it easier when we know there’s already an agreement.
we branch on any_ to either say "require ALL these permissions" or
"require ANY of these permissions". But we only ever call the decorator
with one permission, or with any_=True, so it's unnecessary
platform_admin is a separate concept to permissions, so by removing the
checks for it from the current_user.has_permissions function, we can
simplify things greatly. We already record on the user whether they're
a platform admin anyway.
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.
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
We require that a user has a real reply-to email address before going
live. We can partially automate this by at least telling users who
haven’t done this.
This only applies for users that have email templates; we shouldn’t
bother users who aren’t going to send emails about this.
We need users to have created some templates before they go live, so we
can see what kind of messages they intend to send.
We can do this automatically based on the work done in
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/1892
One of the things that we want to check before a service goes live is
that they have at least two team members with the manage service
permission. Anyone who can make a request to go live has this
permission, so that means one additional user is needed. This is what we
can automatically communicate to the user.
Under the hood this makes use of the logic added in
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/1891
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.
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.
Users can choose whether to have these features on or off now. And
a platform admin can still use the same controls to switch the features
on or off on behalf of a user. There’s no need for the separate buttons.
Our support ticket analysis shows that the most common action request
after going live is turning on letters.
We just do this for any team that requests it – there’s no gatekeeping.
So we should just allow people to make the change themselves.
This will be a better experience for our users, and less work for us.
The design of the page replicates roughly what we have for international
text messaging.
When we first made this form you couldn’t send one off messages with
Notify. It’s interesting to us because it might help identity teams who
would benefit from email auth, or other features that we build in the
future for caseworkers.
