This report will be used by the engagement team. There is a form to give
a start and end date for the report, and the form is then downloaded
as a CSV file when the form is submitted.
It’s possible to delete default letter contact blocks because there is a
fallback – having a blank letter contact block. This is different to SMS
senders and reply to addresses.
For this to make sense it also means:
- adding the ‘blank’ letter contact block to the list of letter contact
blocks
- having a way of setting the default back to being blank
The service organisation type will either be the same as the org type of
the service's organisation or will be set by a user when creating a new
service. This removes the ability to change it from the platform admin
settings table.
We used to give users the right version of the agreement by guessing
their organisation from their email address.
Now we do it by looking at the organisation of the service they’re
looking at.
In other words, users should only be downloading the agreement as part
of the go live journey, not outside it. This is because we think that
users will get confused if they download the agreement and:
- find there’s nowhere to physically sign it
- think that accepting the agreement is all they need to do to go live
Maintaining two paths to download the agreement also makes the code more
complicated, and makes it harder to update the content on these pages.
On the support page we now promise that we’ll:
- look at tickets within half an hour
- reply within one working day
The thanks page was always promising a reply within half an hour, during
business hours or an emergency. This commit changes the ‘thanks’ page to
be consistent with the support page.
If we change our mind and decide whether a service should/should not be
counted in the list of live services then we should also drop the cache
which stores the count of how many live services there are.
This makes it consistent that an option which contains more options has
a hint about how many options it contains.
Also adds a formatter to get us ready for 1,000 services 🎉
Presume this is from when we used to render the letter preview in a
different way. Removing this saves us an API call every time we’re
loading this page.
If you’ve come from a template to add a new letter sender then it’s
because you want those words on that template. This commit adds the
extra API call to make that happen.
Most users don’t have multiple contact blocks. So by default it should
feel like you’re just editing the one contact block, rather than
managing a collection of them. So this page skips the ‘choose’ page when
the user doesn’t yet have any contact blocks.
Also add more tests for showing or not the cancel those letters link
Also check if all notifications already in database
Upgrade delete button text logic to handle more cases
Also corrections following review
Currently we set not-very-useful defaults for organisation type and
crown status when creating an organisation. This commit adds two field
to the form (in addition to the existing name field) to explicitly ask
for:
- organisation type
- crown status
We need these for all organisations before we can make any of their
services live.
This commit also records any new organisation as not having accepted the
data sharing and financial agreement, because if we don’t know about the
organisation already then they definitely won’t have signed it.
Rather than force us to write the decorators in a specific order let’s
just have one decorator call the other. This should make fewer lines of
code, and fewer annoying test failures. It also means that the same way
of raising a `401` (through the `current_app` method) is used
everywhere.
At the moment we mostly have `user_has_permissions` execute first. It
shouldn’t matter, but it feels right for us to check that a user is
logged in before we check their permissions to a service. Otherwise a
malicious user could (maybe) check if a service ID belongs to a real
service, and go on to do something malicious with that information.
This commit adds some extra test code to enforce that the order is
always the same.
N.B. decorators in Python execute from closest to furthest (from the
line on which the function is defined).
We accidentally miss these sometimes. This code adds a test which
inspects the code to automatically check that any function which:
- handles a route
- accepts a service_id
For each function it checks that each of these routes have the
permissions decorator we’d expect.
Most of the introspection/AST code is adapted from here:
https://mvdwoord.github.io/exploration/2017/08/18/ast_explore.html
A user might not have a guessable organisation type, even if the service
they’re working on does have an organisation set. This can happen for
users with @nhs.net email addresses, for example.
An invited user can’t be added to an organisation or service, only a
real user can. So the methods to do this should be on the user model,
and take the details of the invite as arguments.
This is an immediate fix to add the permission checks to the callback page.
However, we have a plan to add a unit test to check for permission introspectively for all routes that have service_id.
Utils 33.0.0 adds alt text to email branding - the HTMLEmailTemplate now
initializes slightly differently as a result (with both `branding_name`
and `branding_text`).
Organisation team members will be ultimately interested in the detailed
usage of each service, but shouldn't necessarily have access to the
personal data of that services users.
So we should allow these organisation team members to navigate to live
services usage page from the organisation page. They may need to contact
the team so they should also be able to view the team members page.
So they'll then see just usage and team members pages.
If they are actually a team member of the service they're viewing, then
they'll see the full range of options as usual.
This commit implement the above by adding an extra flag to the
`user.has_permissions` decorator which allows certain pages to be marked
as viewable by an organisation user. The default (for all other existing
pages) is that organisation users don’t have permission.
If the user has selected that they are accepting the agreement on behalf
of someone else then we need to make the they provide that person’s
details.
If they’ve selected that they are accepting the agreement themselves
then we have to ignore what they might have put in the ‘on behalf of
boxes’ (for example if they filled them out but then changed their
mind).
At the moment, the process for accepting the data sharing and financial
agreement is:
1. download a pdf
* print it out
* get someone to sign it
* scan it
* email it back to us
* we rename the file and save it in Google Drive
* we then update the organisation to say the MOU is signed
* sometimes we also:
* print it out and get it counter-signed
* scan it again
* email it back to the service
Let's not do that any more.
When the first service for an organisation that doesn't have the
agreement in place is in the process of going live, then they should
be able to accept the agreement online as part of the go live flow. This
commit adds the pages that let someone do that.
Where the checklist shows the agreement as **[not completed]** then
they can follow a link where they can download it (as happens now).
From here, they should then also be able to provide some info to accept
it. The info that we need is:
**Version** – because we version the agreements occasionally, we need to
know which version they are accepting. It may not be the latest one if
they downloaded it a while ago and it took time to be signed off
**Who is accepting the agreement** – this will often be someone in the
finance team, and not necessarily a team member, so we should let the
person either accept as themselves, or on behalf of someone else. If
it's on behalf of someone else we need to the name and email address of
that person so we have that on record. Obvs if it's them accepting it
themselves, we have that already (so we just store their user ID and
not their name or email address).
We then replay the collected info back in a sort of legally
binding kind of way pulling in the organisation name too. The wording
we’re using is inspired by what GOV.UK Pay have. Then there’s a big
green button they can click to accept the agreement, which stores their
user ID and and timestamp.
