(I suspect that) because Python dictionaries are not ordered, you can’t
rely on the order of query parameters in a URL to match the arguments
passed to `url_for`. This means the tests can intermittently fail.
This does some hacky workaround stuff to still have reasonable test, but
one that will pass whatever the order of the query parameters is.
`severe` can mean one of three things:
- `yes` – user has told us this is an emergency
- `no` – user has told us this isn’t an emergency
- Anything else – user hasn’t been asked the question or has
hacked/mangled the URL
This commit adds some stricter sanitisation of the `severe` query
parameter and does so up front, rather than spreading it across multiple
functions.
`replace` doesn’t convert a time from one timezone to another. It just
changes the label that says what timezone a time is in 😬
`.localize` is how we handle these kind of issues in the API (see
d0b467b2fb/app/utils.py (L42-L44) )
So this commit changes the calculation to use `.localize`, and makes the
tests timezone aware to check we’re doing this right.
Using and/or over any/all has a couple of advantages:
- it's a bit quicker
- it won't evaluate the second half at all if the first half fails – if
it is in business hours, and convert_to_boolean would raise, with your
use of all we'd throw a 500, whereas if we had or, business_hours
would trip and we'd skip over the second half without worrying about
exceptions
any and all are designed for use with variable length args eg
`any(x for x in thing())`
If you report a problem we want to be able to get back to you to find
out more information, or to update you on the status of a fix. So it
shouldn’t be possible to report a problem without providing an email
address.
This commit makes `email_address` a required field when `ticket_type` is
problem.
This requires a bit of fiddling with the tests which weren’t expecting
to have to provide an email address. So the tests now either:
- pass an email address
- check for an error when they don’t pass an email address
This is a real edge case, but it seems worth handling.
How you’d get to this case:
- it’s 5:29pm and you start to describe the problem you’re having
- it’s 5:31pm and you click ‘submit’
- you’re redirected to the triage page because we’re now out of hours
- you click ‘this is a serious problem’
What would be bad thing to happen:
- you’re back on the message page and all the stuff you’ve written is
gone
What would be a good thing to happen:
- we save the message in a session so that you can check it again before
sending it
Generally I prefer confirmation pages to the flash message thing
(they’re harder to miss). So this commit adds one.
It also adds some logic to this page, so that, depending what the user
has told us about the thing they’ve submitted, we can tell them how
quickly to expect a response.
TL;DR, as much as possible we should work out how to prioritise tickets
and not put that burden on the user. However, there are some cases where
we can’t.
In business hours all tickets are high priority, ie we will at least
acknowledge them within 30 mins.
If we are not in business hours then we need to know if a ticket is
serious enough to get someone out of bed. Only the user can tell us
this, but we can give them some examples to help them decide.
In addition, out-of-hours tickets are only a priority if the user has
live services. Normally we can determine this and do the
priority-setting in the background.
If they can’t log in then we can’t determine what services they have. So
in this case they will need to use the emergency email address, which
only users with live services will have.
The logic for this gets fairly complex. It might be to easier to
understand what’s going on by walking through the test cases, which are
a bit more declarative.
N.B. Deskpro’s ‘urgency’ is descending, eg 10 is the most urgent and 1
is the least.
If a user is logged in then we already know their name and email
address. So there’s no need for them to fill them again on the support
form.
One concern we might have about this is the user not realising we’re
doing this, and the feedback form looking like a bit of a black hole.
So we’re replaying their email address on this page to reassure them
that:
- we know who they are
- and that they’ll get a reply
The kind of communications we’re getting at the moment can broadly be
broken down into:
- problems
- questions and feedback
We will need to triage problems differently, because they could
potentially be urgent/severe/emergency/P1/whatever language we use.
Questions or feedback will never be P1.
Two reasons for making the user categorise their tickets themselves:
- Outside of hours we can’t get someone out of bed in order to decide if
a ticket is a problem or just feedback
- We can tailor the subsequent pages to whether it’s a problem or
feedback (eg showing a link to the status page if the user is having
a problem)
This commit let’s users make the choice with a pair of radio buttons.
It also cleans up a bunch of the tests and parameterizes them so we’re
testing the flow for both ticket types.
Our support process is about to get more fully fledged so we’ll need
an index page to route people properly.
We reckon that users will also want to know what the support process is,
so let’s explain it on this page.
The url was not being properly formed, missing the tempalte_id, meaning the back button on the page did not work.
This fixes that, includes a check of the url for the back button.
Problem: it wasn’t saying ‘phone number’ or ‘email address’
Why: we renamed `Recipients.recipient_column_header` to
`Recipients.recipient_column_headers`, and made it return a list, not
a string.
The fix: take the first item of the list, and use that to decide whether
it’s phone numbers or email addresses that you’re not allowed to send
to.
N.B. This won’t work for letters, but we don’t know how trial mode is
going to work for letters anyway.
(previously it would have sent them to the choose template page)
if the user has added new templates or deleted the example one,
they're clearly competent enough to use the app so don't worry
(we wouldn't know what URL the tour starts on since the UUID of
the example template is random)
We don’t want sanitized content going into the database, because
sometimes we need the content unsanitised. The path from admin to the
API is where the template goes on it’s way to the database. So let’s
make sure we’re not sanitizing it at this stage.
We can no longer trust that the content of templates stored in the
database is safe.
Utils now has code to sanitise the content of templates.
This commit:
- updates utils to bring this code in
- modifies some integration tests to make sure everything is working
(there are more extensive unit tests in utils)
previously we were issuing a flask redirect (302) from the function,
which we then attempted to unpack as a dict further down the line.
raise a werkzeug.routing.RequestRedirect (301 MOVED PERMANENTLY)
instead. note: only use this pattern when the URL they attempted to
access will *NEVER* be valid, as 301s are cached by browsers.
There is a check that the template can not be created as priority if the user is not a platform admin.
There is a check that the template can not change the `priority` unless they are a platform admin.
