Some tests use the `client` fixture but don’t call any of its methods.
The reason for doing this is because the test depends on something in
the request context.
This commit replaces all those instances with `client_request`, which
also sets the request context.
These tests are the last ones that still use the `client` fixture. By
replacing it with `client_request` we will be able to say that no tests
should be using the `client` fixture directly.
This is useful information to store for the event, which would be
lost if someone subsequently changed them.
Rather than updating lots of mock assertions, I've replaced them
with a single test / assert at a lower level, which is consistent
with auditing being a non-critical function.
I've used the term "admin_roles" in the event data to try and show
that these are not the permissions we store in the DB. This is the
name we use for the abstracted form of permissions in the Admin app.
While we could store the DB permissions, that would be a bit more
effort and arguably it's clearer to keep the event data consistent
with the options the user actually saw / chose.
This naming was introduced in 2016 without explanation [1]. I find it
confusing because:
- It's reminiscent of "_app", which is a Python convention indicating
the variable is internal, so maybe avoid using it.
- It suggests there's some other "app" fixture I should be using (there
isn't, though).
The Python style guide describes using an underscore suffix to avoid
clashes with inbuilt names [1], which is sort of applicable if we need
to import the "app" module [2]. However, we can also avoid clashes by
choosing a different name, without the strange underscore.
[1]: 3b1d521c10
[2]: 78824f54fd/tests/app/main/views/test_forgot_password.py (L5)
We don’t vary this between different environments so it doesn’t need to
be in the config.
I was trying to look up what this value was and found it a bit confusing
that it was spread across multiple places.
now that we no longer set it since
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/3841 was merged, we
don't need to remove it either. And we can remove checks that expect it
when cleaning up the session. And the unit tests that make sure we
ignore it if it's in the session.
So long, session['invited_user'] and session['invited_org_user']!
the invited_user objects can be arbitrarily large, and when we put them
in the session we risk going over the session cookie's 4kb size limit.
since https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/3827 was
merged, we store the user id in the session. Now that's been live for a
day or two we can safely stop putting the rich object in the session.
Needed to change a bunch of tests for this to make sure appropriate
mocks were set. Also some tests were accidentally re-using fake_uuid.
Still pop the object when cleaning up sessions. We'll need to remove
that in a future PR.
first of a two step process to remove invited user objects from the
session. we're removing them because they're of variable size, and with
a lot of folder permissions they can cause the session to exceed the 4kb
cookie size limit and not save properly.
this commit looks at invited org users only.
in this step, start saving the invited org user's id to the
session alongside the session object. Then, if the invited_org_user_id
is present in the next step of the invite flow, fetch the user object
from the API instead of from the session. If it's not present (due to a
session set by an older instance of the admin app), then just use the
old code to get the entire object out of the session.
For invites where the user is small enough to persist to the cookie,
this will still save both the old and the new way, but will always make
an extra check to the API, I think this minor performance hit is totally
fine. For invites where the user is too big to persist, they'll still
fail for now, and will need to wait until the next PR comes along and
stops saving the large invited user object to the session entirely.
When we get a support ticket we need to check whether a user has any
live services.
We have a method for this on the user model now, so we don’t need a
separate function in the feedback code.
It wasn’t very well tested so I’ve adapted the old tests from the
feedback view to work against the method on the user model too.
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.
so that platform admins (us) can view pages as regular users do easily.
Simply adds a flag in the session cookie that overrides the actual
platform admin flag on the user model if set. This way it's safe, since
this only downgrades existing functionality, so if someone managed to
alter it they could only get less permissions, not more.
You can change this value from the user profile page if either:
* you're a platform admin
* the flag is set (to any value) on the cookie.
This slightly weird check means that we don't check the underlying
`user._platform_admin` flag anywhere in the code, even when toggling
the suppression.
