We don't need these anymore as all users will use the `one-off/step`
routes.
This has mostly involved tidying up the tests which are still a little
disorganised and not as good as I'd like but it's a step in the right
direction.
More refactoring is still possible to the routes, it may come in a later
PR if I have time.
with reset password email.
This is so when users reset their password they are still
redirected to pages they were meant to visit.
This change was done specifically so everyone who is meant to see
broadcast tour sees it, but it will improve lives of all users
who wanted to visit a page on Notify but then had to reset
their password in the process.
There is no real reason to have to support both 'one-off' steps and also
'test' steps when sending a one off notification. It's a lot of complex
code, just to now set the one of the placeholders in the session.
We make our code much simpler but no longer using the 'test' routes but
instead adding a new endpoint to set the notification recipient when
sending to yourself before continuing on with the rest of the 'one-off'
flow.
After this is deployed for a day then we can completely remove the
'test' routes and this will help remove a lot of code complexity.
We no longer need the `start_tour` page as this has been replaced with
the new `begin_tour` page.
We also no longer need to handle the `help` argument in the
`send_test_step` or `send_one_off_step` as these no longer are
responsible for the tour and don't need to show the help text.
Worth pointing out, the new tour joins into the send one off flow. When
doing a GET `check_tour_notification`, and submitting the form shown on
this page you are POSTed to `send_notification` with `help=3`. Also for
general sending of one off notifications, the POST to
`send_notification` is done with `help=0` which is a bit of a hack to
make sure that we don't show a back link on the `view_notification` page
for when someone gets there having just sent a one off notification.
This use of `help=0` may be a candidate for a refactor in the future as
it feels like a bit of a hacky way of doing things and is therefore not
as clear to developers what is going on.
Also removes the help argument from the csv routes used here. There is
no reason that we need to ever show help for CSVs and this is leftover
code from when we used to do the tour that way.
On submit of form on this page, will continue to normal sending flow
which can be shared code as there is no longer previous context needed
of where they have come from
Note, we choose to start our urls at step-1 rather than step-0 as this
is consistent when you would enter the first placeholder (excluding the
recipient) for the one off tour.
Also note, we expect a service to allow international sms by default
when it is first created but we keep the check for if the service does
just in case they visit this tour later on.
I emailed the Geography team at the ONS:
> Hi geography team,
>
> I work on GOV.UK Notify, which is a service run by Government Digital Service (part of the Cabinet Office). I was given your email address by [redacted] who’s been helping answer some of my questions on the cross-government Slack.
>
> We’re using some of the boundary datasets from the Open Geography Portal, and mostly they’ve been excellent.
>
> In the abstract, the problem we’re trying to solve is, given a point outside an area, what is the minimum distance to a point within that area. So, for example, if a crow was somewhere in Cardiff, what’s the shortest distance it would have to fly to reach somewhere in the Bristol local authority district?
>
> We’ve noticed some problems with the data that means our calculations would be wrong. We’ve noticed this around Torquay, Norwich and Bristol. Here are some screenshots of Bristol, from the generalised and full resolution boundaries:
>
> The artefacts I’ve highlighted are closer to Cardiff than any actual part of the land area of Bristol. They are either:
> - in the sea
> - land that’s part of North Somerset
>
> I suspect that this is being caused by the process of clipping the actual region of Bristol (which, unusually, extends into the water) to the mean high water line.
>
> I’ve worked around this by filtering out any polygons that are smaller than ~7,500m². It’s a bit hacky because parts of the Scilly Isles start disappearing. That’s not a problem for what I’m working on, but it would be nice to not need the hack.
>
> So my questions would be:
>
> - Is there a better way to remove these artefacts than filtering by area?
> - Is there a plan to remove these artefacts from the data in future releases?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Chris
They emailed back to say:
> Hi Chris
>
> Thank you for your enquiry.
>
> We have completed the amendments to the LAD MAY 2020 BFC and BGC boundaries as mentioned so you should be able to download them from the portal now.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Kind regards
> [redacted]
This commit brings in the files they’ve updated. We still have to do
some filtering (but now at a higher resolution) because they haven’t
fixed Norwich yet. I’ll email them separately about that.
We’ve had some feedback from user research that difference between
‘will get alert’ and ‘likely to get alert’ is not clear, and it’s hard
to tell if the latter is inclusive of the former. This leads people to
question the validity of these numbers, which is important, because an
the estimate should give you some idea of the impact of what you’re
about to do.
This commit reformats the number as a range, for example 1,000 to 2,000
phones.
If the range is small, eg 40,000,000 to 40,800,000 then this suggests
a false level of accuracy. So instead we just give one number and say
it’s an estimate, eg ‘40,000,000 phones estimated’
