This is a quick additional check to protect the user:
- From getting a CloudFront 502 error if the file takes too
long to upload. I was surprised to find it takes about 1 minute
to upload a 70Mb file to S3.*
- From getting a CloudFront 502 error when we follow the redirect
and run through the slow processing code in utils that builds a
RecipientCSV [1].
For context, a CSV with 100K rows and a few columns is around 5Mb,
so a 10Mb limit should be enough. Analysis over the past week shows
that the vast majority of CSV uploads are actually < 2.5Mb.
I haven't added any tests for this because:
- The check isn't critical, as the worst case scenario is the user
gets a worse error than this in-app one.
- There's no easy way to mock the validation, and I didn't want to
have a test that depends on a 10Mb+ file.
*We're using "key.put" to upload the file, when we could be doing
a multipart upload [2]. However, I tried this myself with a chunk
size of 1000 bytes and found it only led to a marginal improvement.
[1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-utils/pull/930
[2]: https://boto3.amazonaws.com/v1/documentation/api/latest/guide/s3-uploading-files.html
When we combine simplified polygons from different areas we try to use
the polygons that are defined in metres as a speed optimisation.
This doesn’t work when those polygons are in several different
projections because the distance in metres is relative to the edge of
the projection. Just naively choosing one projection means that some
of the polygons will shift position on the earth by 100s of kilometers
once they are converted back to degrees.
To avoid this we need to:
- check for situations where we have polygons in multiple different
projections
- transforms these polygons back into degrees and let `Polygons` pick a
common projection for all of them before doing any
merging/smoothing/etc.
The original idea behind was to always ask users to re-enter their
password any time:
- we want them to be sure that they want to do what they’re about to do
- we want to be sure it’s really the user trying to do the thing (and
not someone malicious)
In reality we:
- removed this from the initial place it was added (a descendent of the
‘suspend service’ feature)
- only ever added it to the ‘rename service’ feature
So in reality it’s not a pattern we have persisted with. Arguably there
are several things you can now do in the admin app without re-entering
your password which are much more high consequence than changing the
service name.
Also, with browser autofill there’s a lot less chance that forcing
someone to re-enter a password really gives much defence against an
unatteneded laptop, for example.
I also wonder whether we might get people to give better service names
if we make the process of renaming the service less intimidating.
So this commit removes the need to re-enter your password when renaming
a service.
Note that re-naming an organisation still has the same check, but I
haven’t removed that too for the sake of keeping scope of the PR small.
Transforming full resolution polygons to linear coordinates is somewhat
expensive. We can make things run faster by:
- looking at `simple_polygons` which have fewer points and are therefore
faster to transform.
- reusing polygons that have already been transformed where possible
Brings in https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-utils/pull/889/files
At the moment, we are not doing any transformation of features before
applying geometric algorithms to them. This is, in effect, assuming that
the earth is flat.
This new version of utils implements the transformation of our polygons
to a Cartesian plane. In other words, it converts them from being
defined in spherical degrees to metres.
For the admin app this means we need to convert places where the code
expects things to be measured in degrees to work in metres instead.
We think that the API is returning incorrect data for this column.
It’s going to take a while to figure out what’s going on with the
queries in the API, so this pull request temporarily removes the column
so we’ve not giving people incorrect data.
We are starting to see lots of 100.0%s in the current table
and we think this looks suspiciously too good so think it is
beneficial to change it to be 2dp such that we get a few more
non 100.0% values.
This will put all the values in to having 2dp, however it will
also require the API to have a change to
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-api/blob/master/app/performance_dashboard/rest.py#L81
where it is currently losing the granularity down to a single
decimal place (meaning that if we were really at 99.894% then that
would be shown on the page as 99.90% rather than 99.89%). However,
I don't think it is a blocker that we get that sorted before this
can be merged.
This means that the data in the report will match what’s on the page,
where the values are rounded to the nearest penny.
This uses the same string formatting to round the numbers which the
`big_number` component does, so it should round the numbers in the same
way.
This is so org level users can use this data easier for things
like determining spending per service.
We do not include sms fragments sent column and remove other sms columns
consistency.
Do not add sms fragments sent column for now until we agree on an
unambiguous name for it. The data in this column is sms billing units
multiplied by international sms weighing. My favourite for a clear
name would be 'text message credits used', but we need a naming
strategy for this.
This makes it clearer that this model collection isn’t the organisations
for a user or a service or some other entity, like most model
collections are.
It will also lets us make a separate Organisations model, without the
name conflicting.
This commits adds test coverage for ther HTML in several of the forms
which had broken autofocus.
It means that if we make changes to the HTML which triggers autofocus in
the future it should be more obvious that something is depending on the
attributes being added/removed.
This moves things out of the parametrization that didn't need to be
in there and also makes the test match the test below,
test_shows_delete_link_for_error_on_post_request_for_edit_email_reply_to_address,
more closely.
https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/180026726
There was a bug where if you enter an invalid email address in
to the edit reply to email address form and click save, the
form you get shown with your error message will always contain
the field to set as default the reply to and also delete. This should
not have been the case. If you make an error on the form when
changing a reply to that is already a default, then you should not
be given the chance to change it to not default, nor should you
be able to delete it.
This commit fixes that bug by making sure the additional form fields
are only shown if the reply to being changed is not the default.
This test is now failing due to the combination of both Werkzeug having
had a major version bump in a previous PR and the Python version
changing. Calling `current_service` is now giving an error when trying
to get the `service` from the `_request_ctx_stack` because
`_request_ctx_stack` has no `service` attribute. There was no error
before, so it appears some underlying behaviour has changed. I've fixed
the test by changing the setup, but there is no effect on production
code - when the app is running `load_service_before_request` is called
before every request.
The current link button for removing an area is
created using a psuedo element with an 'x' as
content.
The inline box for the 'x' overlapped its parent.
This is visible in high contrast mode, breaking the
parent's border. Despite existing in CSS, the 'x'
is also announced by screen readers, which is not
what we want.
This changes it to be an inline SVG with a role of
image. It doesn't require as large an inline box
so doesn't cause visual issues in high contrast
modes. It also means we can set it's label similar to
how you would an image's alt text, giving us
control over what is announced by screen readers.
This commit also includes some extra CSS,
targeting high contrast modes, giving the
link button the following when viewed in those
modes:
- a complete border so it is
distinguishable from the list item
- a focus style
`reference` isn’t very human-friendly – the Environment Agency just
supply a UUID in this field.
The Environment Agency also populate the `<event>`` field with some
human readable text, for example:
> 013 Issue Severe Flood Warning EA
(013 is an ‘area code’ which will be meaningful to the Flood Warning Service team)
This commit changes the frontend to display the value of the `cap_event`
field, if it’s present, which is where the API stores the value of the
`<event>` field from the original CAP XML.
***
Depends on:
- [x] https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-api/pull/3344/files
You’re supposed to see the two column layout on this page if you have
multiple categories of things to show.
We weren’t counting the ‘platform admin’ section as one of these
categories so platform admin users with only live services or only trial
mode services were inadvertenly seeing a mixture of the one column and
two column layout.
Also this logic around the headings wasn’t tested before – now it is.
I recently found that there is a problem with the
overuse of lists online for sequences of content
that don't need to be in a list. I think that's
what we're doing with our map key.
The problem is large enough that browsers include
heuristics to determine if lists should be
presented as such to the accessibility API (and so
to assistive tech' like screen readers). This
thread contains more details:
https://twitter.com/cookiecrook/status/1337226933822603270
Based on the metric described in the thread:
'If all of the styles that make it “list-like”
have been removed, it’s no longer relevant to
convey it as a list.'
...or
'if a sighted user doesn’t need to know it’s a
list, why would a screen reader user need to know
or want to know?'
Based on that, I think the items in our map key
should be paragraphs, not items in a list.
Also, they read really well as sentences when
announced by a screen reader, partly because of
the extra (hidden) info @quis added to them.
This also doesn't change their visual appearance.
Since we’ve introduced the ‘on behalf of’ wording to the go live ticket
(to talk about who the agreement has been signed on behalf of) it’s
confusing to use the same terminology to talk about the organisation
for whom the agreement has been accepted.
