If we change our mind and decide whether a service should/should not be
counted in the list of live services then we should also drop the cache
which stores the count of how many live services there are.
This should make the ‘All organisations’ page load a lil’ bit quicker.
Still worth caching the domains separately so the response is smaller
when we only care about domains. This is because the code that uses the
domains is part of the sign up flow, so it’s really important that it’s
snappy.
Users can only be archived by Platform Admin from the user page
(/users/<user_id>). This removes them from all services and orgs and
updates their details.
The data flow of other bits of our application looks like this:
```
API (returns JSON)
⬇
API client (returns a built in type, usually `dict`)
⬇
Model (returns an instance, eg of type `Service`)
⬇
View (returns HTML)
```
The user API client was architected weirdly, in that it returned a model
directly, like this:
```
API (returns JSON)
⬇
API client (returns a model, of type `User`, `InvitedUser`, etc)
⬇
View (returns HTML)
```
This mixing of different layers of the application is bad because it
makes it hard to write model code that doesn’t have circular
dependencies. As our application gets more complicated we will be
relying more on models to manage this complexity, so we should make it
easy, not hard to write them.
It also means that most of our mocking was of the User model, not just
the underlying JSON. So it would have been easy to introduce subtle bugs
to the user model, because it wasn’t being comprehensively tested. A lot
of the changed lines of code in this commit mean changing the tests to
mock only the JSON, which means that the model layer gets implicitly
tested.
For those reasons this commit changes the user API client to return
JSON, not an instance of `User` or other models.
The domains lookup is a bit slow because it’s serialising all the
organisations in the database. Since we’re putting this in the sign up
flow it should feel snappy, so lets cache just the domain bit of it in
Redis.
At the moment we have to update a YAML file and deploy the change to get
a new domain whitelisted.
We already have a thing for adding new domains – the organisation stuff.
This commit extends the validation to look in the `domains` table on the
API if it can’t find anything in the YAML whitelist.
This has the advantage of:
- not having to deploy code to whitelist a new domain
- forcing us to create new organisations as they come along, so that
users’ services automatically get allocated to the organisation once
their domain is whitelisted
At the moment you have to wait for whoever you’ve invited to accept the
invitation before you can go live. Since this check is mainly for the
benefit of the service, not us, we should trust that people’s intentions
are good when they invite someone.
So this commit also checks the invited users when counting how many team
members a service has.
We’re deprecating storing the domain as text on a branding in favour of
a database relationship between branding and organisation.
We need to do this now in order to remove the validation on these fields
(which depends on the data in `domains.yml`)
This is the first step of replacing the `domains.yml` file.
In order to replicate the same functionality we get from the
`domains.yml` file and its associated code this commit adds a
`Organisation` model. This model copies a lot of methods from the
`AgreementInfo` class which wrapped the `domains.yml` file.
It factors out some stuff that would otherwise be duplicated between the
`Organisation` and `Service` model, in such a way that could be reused
for making other models in the future.
This commit doesn’t change other parts of the code to make use of this
new model yet – that will come in subsequent commits.
Returns the data calculated by the API. Stored in Redis against a
hardcoded key so that no-one hammering the home page is directly hitting
the database.
Copying a template from another service is one place where we can't
use the `current_service` method since the source template can belong
to a different service the user has access to, so we're using an API
client method.
Adds a front end for:
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-api/pull/2417
> Sometimes we have to make a few services for what really is one
> service, for example GOV.UK Pay and GOV.UK Pay Direct Debit. We also
> have our own test services which aren’t included in the count of live
> services. We currently count these as one service by not including
> them in the beta partners spreadsheet.
The api endpoint to get all template folders also returns the users who
can see each folder.
We need to clear the template-folder cache when adding a user to a service so
that we are not using out of date data about who can see each folder.
Added a folder permissions form to the page to invite users to services.
This only shows if the service has 'edit_folder_permissions' enabled,
and all folder checkboxes are checked by default. This change means that
InviteApiClient.create_invite now sends folder_permissions through to
notifications_api (so invites get created with folder permissions).
Started passing the folder_permissions through to notifications-api when
accepting an invite. This changes UserApiClient.add_user_to_service to
send folder_permissions to notifications_api so that new users get folder
permissions when they are added to the service.
The endpoint for adding a user to a service in api will now deal with
both user permissions and a user's folder permissions, so this changes
the format of the data we pass through.
Integrates the folder permissions form with the updated API endpoint
to store changes in the user folders.
Since user folder permissions are returned in the full list of template
folders for the service we need to invalidate the cache key for it each
time we update user permissions.
We get a bunch of requests to go live where people have told us they're
going to send email but there is no email reply-to address present.
These come from 2 scenarios:
1. when there are email templates, and no reply to address – but they
ignore the checklist
2. when there are no email templates (yet) but they provide anticipated
volumes for email
At the moment we only auto-check for a reply to address when they have
email templates. And because the question about anticipated volumes
follows the checklist, you'll get a checklist that passes (reply
addresses not required as no templates present) - but your future intent
that differs (reply address IS required because you have anticipated
volumes).
So let’s bring the request for anticipated volumes into the checklist,
that way we can dynamically add the requirement for a reply to address
if they say they will send email but don't have templates yet.
We should begin storing it in the database against the service to stop
people having to re-enter it each time they try to complete the go live
screens.
This also means moving the ‘consent to research question’ along with
the questions about volume, because
- we want people to answer both before going live
- we don’t want to clutter up the summary page by asking questions there
too
The endpoint for setting permissions in api will now be used for both
user permissions and a user's folder permissions, so this changes the
format of the data we pass through.
when clients are defined in app/__init__.py, it increases the chance of
cyclical imports. By moving module level client singletons out to a
separate extensions file, we stop cyclical imports, but keep the same
code flow - the clients are still initialised in `create_app` in
`__init__.py`.
The redis client in particular is no longer separate - previously redis
was set up on the `NotifyAdminAPIClient` base class, but now there's one
singleton in `app.extensions`. This was done so that we can access redis
from outside of the existing clients.
new code is copied stylistically from the email branding patterns.
Instead of `service.dvla_organisation`, there's now
`service.letter_branding` and `service.letter_branding_id`. However,
unlike email branding we're not currently showing a preview of the
logo. That can come later when we work out how we want to do it.
