Often people will be editing the existing name, not changing it
completely.
This matches what we do when someone wants to rename their template or
service.
A folder is relevant if it, or any of its descents contain a template of
the kind you’re looking for.
If you’re not filtering by template type then you should see all
folders.
- Add a GET / POST view: manage template folder
- Add a template for that view, where a user can rename their
folder
- Add an API client method for updating a folder
- Test the new feature, including the test that service without
permissions cannot manage a folder
This commit adds logic to:
- take the list of selected folders and templates
- split it into two lists (of folders and templates)
- `POST` that data to the API, to effect the movement of said folders
and templates
I’ve tried to architect it in such a way that we can easily add more
template ‘operations’ in the future, as we add more forms to the choose
template page.
This commit adds:
- checkboxes to let you select a template or folder
- radio buttons to let you select where to move those template(s) and/or
folder(s) to
It only does the `get` part of this work; handling the `post` and
calling API will be done in a subsequent commit.
This has two advantages:
- less logic in the view
- lets us filer the available navigation by which channels (email, text
letter) a service has available
When adding a new folder it is created inside the currently active
one. The user is returned to the previously active folder page,
which shows the added folder.
This adds a new route to the add template/folder views. Thankfully,
`url_for` recognizes when `template_folder_id` is `None` and will use
the URL without `/folders/...`, so users without folder permissions
should be unaffected by this change.
Clicking on template folder navigates to a page that displays that
folder's contents.
This reuses the existing choose template view by adding a filter
based on optional `template_folder_id` argument.
Service model methods are rewritten to match `all_templates` and
`get_template`. New `get_template_folder_path` method returns a
list of folders (from root to the current one) that the selected
folder is nested inside.
With the addition of template folders we need to filter templates
based on a combination of type and parent folder ID.
This replaces the existing `templates_by_type` method with
`get_templates`, which supports both type and parent folder filters,
avoiding a need to create specific methods for each use case.
We still need the templates property to exist in some way in order
to cache it, but it needs to be clear that it's different from
`.get_templates`. One option was to make it "private" (i.e. `_templates`),
and always use `.get_templates` in the rest of the code, but this requires
adding "include all folders" to `.get_templates`, which doesn't have an
obvious interface since `parent_folder_id=None` already means "top-level
only".
This will probably come up again when we need to look into adding
templates from nested folders into the page for live search, but
for now renaming `Service.templates` to `.all_templates` makes it
clear what the property contains.
The add new templates page now has option to add template folders.
Tweaked wording of other options and h1 to clarify options since it's
not all about templates any more.
Added api client and stuff for it
The view here is rebuilding a pseudo-service object. Now that service
objects have templates it’s cleaner to use the actual service object.
Requires a small change to the `templates_by_type` method so that it can
filter by one or many template types (a user should be able to copy any
template whose type is enabled for their service, and the service
they’re copying from).
Making people use a property is a sure way to make sure they’re spelling
the name of the property correctly, and allows us to easily swap out
properties that call through to the underlying JSON, and properties
which are implemented as methods.
We do a lot of logic around choosing which templates to show. This logic
is all inside one view method.
It makes it cleaner to break this logic up into functions. But this
would mean passing around variables from one function to another.
Putting these methods onto a class (the service model) means that
there’s a place to store this data (rather than having to pass it around
a lot).
Making this code more manageable is important so that when we have
templates and folders it’s easy to encapsulate the logic around
combining the two.
If you skip past the templates page (because you don’t have the edit
permission) but then click back you end up in a loop which redirects you
to the page you’re already on.
This commit makes sure that you’re sent back a step further, so you
don’t get stuck in that loop.
We were taking letters away from basic view because there’s no one-off
sending of letters.
But now that basic view isn’t an opt-in thing but something we’re
rolling out to all users who only have the ‘send’ permission it feels
like too drastic a change to remove letters.
It’s too jarring to go straight from the list of templates to the upload
addresses page. So while we don’t have sending a one-off letter as a
thing, let’s keep the template page.
We’re going to make it possible for some users to be members of a
service, but not have any permissions (not even `view_activity`).
There are some pages that these users should still be able to see
These are the pages that a user with ‘basic view’ would have been able
to see, excluding those that let them send messages.
If you only send messages then there’s no longer much point in the
template page. It now, for you, only has one action – ‘Send’.
This commit changes the journey for these users so they go straight from
clicking the name of the template to the page where you enter the phone
number or email address.
This is better because it reduces the number of steps a user has to
click through to send a message.
This journey is what we were previously calling ‘basic view’. But this
changes makes it automatically available to anyone who would benefit
from it. It removes the complexity of:
- having to opt in to basic view at a service level
- having to choose on a per-user basis who has basic view
- understanding the nuance between basic view and only choosing the
‘Send messages’ permission
Users who will still see the template page are:
- those who can edit templates – they need the ‘edit’ link
- users with the manage API keys permission – they need a place to get
the template ID
This is better than just keying into the JSON because it means you get
an exception straight away when looking up a key that doesn’t exist
(which via mocking you could ordinarily miss).
Having the service floating about as JSON is a bit flakey. Could easily
introduce a mistake where you mistype the name of a key and silently
get `None`.
Also means doing awkward things like `if 'permission' in
current_service['permissions']`, whereas for users we can do the
much cleaner `user.has_permission()`.
So this commit:
- introduces a model
- adds a `.has_permission` method similar to the one we have for users
Sometimes when setting up a service you might have a few very similar
templates, in which only a small amount of content. Or you might even
have a few of services, which are used by different teams but have
similar templates.
Copy and pasting, especially from one service to another, is a pain.
This commit makes it easier by allowing users to copy an existing
template when choosing to add a new one, instead of starting from
scratch.
From Karl:
> Templates – this should be consistent with Admin view. Users may
> switch from Basic to Admin view (or vice versa), they will also
> interact with users who have a different view or permissions to them.
> Neither should have to learn new interfaces and language if possible.
> ‘Send a message’ was a nice, active label – but Notify options aren’t
> usually actions. If we’re going to change this we should be consistent
> across both Admin and Basic views.
> For the same reason, I have rejected ‘see’, ‘search’ and ‘view sent
> messages’. It will be interesting to see in user testing whether users
> read ‘sent messages’ as ‘send messages’.
The main task that we think ‘caseworker’ users do is send one off
messages.
So this commit:
- makes sure users who don’t have the `view_activity` permission (ie
not ‘admin’ users) can still send messages
- adds navigation so that these users have a place to go from which to
start the process of sending a one off message
when added to a service, all users are given the view_activity
permission. So, if that's included in the list, we don't need `any_`,
and we don't need any of the other permissions.
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.
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
