We were using user fixtures in a lot of parameterized tests, but this is
no longer allowed in Pytest 5. To avoid having to split up the parametrized
tests (which would make the test files a lot longer and slightly more
difficult to read) this commit creates functions which return various types
of user json so that we can use these as the test parameters instead.
GOV.UK Design System recommends:
> You should also set the autocomplete attribute to email. This lets
> browsers autofill the email address on a user’s behalf if they’ve
> entered it previously.
Only doing this on the register and sign in forms because it’s unlikely
to be helpful where a user is trying to enter someone else’s email
address.
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.
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.
At the moment we have to update a YAML file and deploy the change to get
a new domain whitelisted.
We already have a thing for adding new domains – the organisation stuff.
This commit extends the validation to look in the `domains` table on the
API if it can’t find anything in the YAML whitelist.
This has the advantage of:
- not having to deploy code to whitelist a new domain
- forcing us to create new organisations as they come along, so that
users’ services automatically get allocated to the organisation once
their domain is whitelisted
This removes the edit_folder_permission checks from the code, enabling
the folder permissions for all services.
This also fixes folder-related tests to set up appropriate user
permissions.
This should only be merged right after alphagov/notifications-api#2428,
when all other permission stories are done.
Platform admin users can access all template folders, so the folder
permissions form always displays everything as checked for them,
which makes it look like the form isn't actually working. We could
do the check based on folder data, but the field still wouldn't
have any effect on permissions. So instead, we hide it completely
for platform admin users.
Submitting the form will remove any folder permissions from the DB
for the platform admin user (which can still be created by changing
permissions on the template folder 'Manage' page), but that's only
relevant if a user stops being a platform admin but keeps their
Notify services.
When a user's email address is updated, we not allowing it to be changed
to a non-government email address. We now allow a non-gov email address
to be changed to another non-gov email address. Government email
addresses still cannot be changed to non-government email addresses.
Also fixes the link in the error message on the ChangeEmailAddress form -
this was being escaped before.
We should audit when a service manager changes a user profile that is not
their own. This can be recorded in our events table, which is currently
only used to record successful logins.
This adds two new types of event, `update_user_email` and
`update_user_mobile_number` which store the
- browser fingerprint
- IP address
- user id of the user being updated
- user id of the service manager making the change
- original email address and new email address (for `update_user_email`
events)
- original mobile number and new mobile number (for
`update_user_mobile_number` events)
Shows a count of how many folders that user can see - this doesn't do
anything smart with parent folder stuff, it's just "how many checkboxes
are ticked on the edit page".
* doesn't show if service has no folders
* doesn't show if service hasn't got folder permissions enabled
It:
- saves repetetive boilerplate code
- does some extra checks (eg checking for a `200` response)
- makes the codebase less confusing to consistently do the same thing in
the same way
remove `confirm` from `confirm_remove_user_from_service` as there's
only one action now that the initial confirmation prompt takes place
on the edit permissions page
when you hit the delete button, it flashes the delete button and takes
you to the `/service/../user/../delete` url. If you then click the save
button, it would make a POST to the delete URL... and delete the user.
now the page stays on the edit url, but adds a `?delete=yes` query
string. The dangerous flash banner now has an action field which
defines where the browser will make the POST to (which remains at
/delete).
If a new user is being invited for a service which doesn't have edit
folder permissions turned on, we want to send all folders for that
service to api.
Added a folder permissions form to the page to invite users to services.
This only shows if the service has 'edit_folder_permissions' enabled,
and all folder checkboxes are checked by default. This change means that
InviteApiClient.create_invite now sends folder_permissions through to
notifications_api (so invites get created with folder permissions).
Started passing the folder_permissions through to notifications-api when
accepting an invite. This changes UserApiClient.add_user_to_service to
send folder_permissions to notifications_api so that new users get folder
permissions when they are added to the service.
Integrates the folder permissions form with the updated API endpoint
to store changes in the user folders.
Since user folder permissions are returned in the full list of template
folders for the service we need to invalidate the cache key for it each
time we update user permissions.
We're reusing the logic for the `move_to` nested radios field for the
user folder permissions nested checkboxes.
The main difference between the two forms (aside from the different
input type) is that "Move" form contains the root "Templates" as an
option, whereas the folder permissions doesn't.
It turns out that, because of the way NestedFieldMixin.children and
select_nested macro are implemented the easiest way to get the desired
folder permissions behaviour is to add the root folder as a choice with
a `None` value and `NONE_OPTION_VALUE = None` set on the field, which
allows the `child_map` to be constructed but doesn't display the root
folder checkbox itself since it gets overwritten in the final `child_map`.
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).
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.
None of our model or view layer code should need to know about accepted
invites. We don’t use them anywhere because once an invite is accepted
that person is now a user.
Putting this logic in the client means that:
- none of the code calling the client needs to care about accepted
invites
- it’s easier to (if we want) update the API code to not return accepted
invites
This commit is the first step to disentangling the models from the API
clients. With the models in the same folder as the API clients it makes
it hard to import the API clients within the model without getting a
circular import.
After this commit the user API clients still has this problem, but at
least the service API client doesn’t.
Since we have added a new, 5th permission the existing permissions
should be relabelled so that the five make sense as a coherent set.
We especially want to make sure that:
- the labels work against the checkboxes and against the tick/crosses on
the manage users page (a long time ago this page was layed out
differently so didn’t have space for full labels)
- there is no confusion between usage and reports
This commit also:
- re-adds a line about what all users can see (‘sent messages’) but
continues to omit the additional bullet points about templates and
team members (because we think this is clear enough from reading the
permissions)
- refactors the `Form` subclass so that the content and order of the
permissions only have to be defined once
- brings back the ‘permissions’ legend on the `fieldset`
Our research and prototyping around ‘basic view’ found that:
- a lot of users who send messages rarely or never look at the dashboard
(yet it’s the first page they see when they sign in)
- team managers like the idea of taking away things that users don’t
need in order to make the interface simpler
We’ve disentangled the simpler way of sending messages from being part
of ‘basic view’. This means we can give managers the option of taking
away the dashboard as an independent choice, not something that’s
wrapped up in a separate ‘view’.
I think that this checkbox is a more straightforward proposition than
‘basic view’ ever was (despite all the work we did to explain it and
develop the nested checkbox pattern). In research users would often
explain the feature back to us as being about hiding the dashboard – we
should try to make Notify operate in terms of concepts that come
naturally to people wherever possible.
This commit changes the form that the user sees when inviting or editing
another user, if the service has the ‘caseworking’ permission set.
This will allow creating a new type of user, one who only has the
`send_messages` permission, without the `view_activity` permission.
We are doing this because we think there are a number of services with a
lot of users who don’t need to see the dashboard, or the other team
members, and that we can make a simpler interface for these users.
we were seeing isort produce different outputs locally and in docker -
this was due to it having different opinions about whether the tests
module (ie all our unit tests) is a first party (local) or third party
(pip installed) import. It's a first party import, so by defining this
in the setup.cfg isort settings, we can force it to be consistent
between environments.
Note: I don't know why it was different in the first place though
