We shouldn’t have a page where someone can look up any other user’s
email address based on their user ID.
We also don’t want a page where a malicious user could send someone an
link which would get them invited to the service.
Restricting the invite to be populated just from users in their own
organisation doesn’t mitigate against this stuff completely, but they
probably have a way of finding out the email address of someone in their
organisation already.
At the moment users must be invited to join a service. But this means:
- users must know that a service already exists
- they need to know who to ask for an invite
If the user doesn’t know these thing then sometimes they just go ahead
and set up a new service. Which means they have to get all the way to
the point of requesting to go live before we tell them that there’s
already a service with a similar name or purpose.
So we should let users:
1. discover what other services exist in their organisation
2. apply to join a service
3. automatically notify the service managers of their interest
4. be invited by a service manager
5. accept the invite
This commit implements step 4. We can just link them to the invite form
in step 3., but we should make it easy for them to send the invite,
without having to copy and paste email addresses.
So this commit let the invite form be pre-populated with an existing
user’s email address.
This shows the green banner with a tick when cancelling a user's
invitation to a service or organisation. The accessibility audit noted
that 'When cancelling an invite a new page loads, however, there is no
immediate indication that the invite has been cancelled.'
In order to display the invited user's email address as part of the
flash message, this adds new methods to the api clients for invites to get
a single invite.
Changes those fields (and sometimes also regular text input fields)
in the following forms:
- LoginForm
- RegisterUserForm
- ChangeEmailForm
- FeedbackOrProblem
- AcceptAgreementForm
- ChangeNameForm (only name field here, but used in the same template
field as ChangeEmailForm here: app/templates/views/user-profile/change.html)
Also includes changes to templates that use this form
and associated tests.
The fields used for user permissions on
permissions forms were changed as part of the work
converting the checkboxes to GOVUK Frontend.
This removes code added to protect against a
situation where the server-side app was running
this updated code but clients were POSTing from
pages that were not, and so sending the old HTTP
params.
User permissions were handled by a group of
BooleanFields but introducing the new checkboxes
changed this to just one field that stores its
data in a list.
It was mentioned in a comment that there could be
a situation, when the instances roll, where clients
are using the old fields but POSTing to a server
running the new code.
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/3535#discussion_r460872903
This introduces tests for that situation.
These fields used to use govukCheckboxesField and
so stored their data in a list. They were since
migrated to govukCheckboxField, which extends
BooleanField and so keeps its data as a boolean
value.
Since users of broadcast services will always have the view dashboard
permission and never have the API keys permission we can hide these. And
we should re-label the permissions to make sense in the context of
broadcasting.
For services with the broadcast permission this hides:
- the ‘View dashboard’ permission (and defaults it to _checked_) because
all users of broadcast services will need to see the dashboard
- the ‘Manage API keys’ permission (and defaults it to _not checked_)
because we don’t offer an API integration for broadcast services yet
– if we do we won’t want existing users to automatically get the
permission
It relabels:
- the ‘Send’ permission to ‘Prepare and approve’ to match the current,
slightly clunky language on the templates page
- the ‘Manage settings’ label to not refer to ‘usage’ because broadcast
services won’t incur cost
See c31264d4c for why ‘whitelist’ should be avoided. The use of
whitelist here was not referring to the user-maintained list, but to
mean ‘not a government’ email address. This commit renames these tests
to make that difference clear.
If someone enters an email address from a domain we don’t recognise we
direct them straight to our support channel. This is causing increased
contact from suppliers and members of the public.
Now that we have a page which explains who can use Notify, let’s direct
people there first. Then if they really do need to contact support
(because we don’t recognise their organisation) then they can do so from
that page.
The property doesn’t represent the whole client, but just one method on
it. So this commit renames the property to better describe what it is
designed to store.
The session key we use is global.
This means if you open the edit page for two different users in two
different tabs the session for the first tab is overwritten with the
session from the second tab. This means the two users are both set to
the same email address, which causes an exception (email addresses are
unique).
This commit fixes that bug by including the user ID in the session ID.
We were using user fixtures in a lot of parameterized tests, but this is
no longer allowed in Pytest 5. To avoid having to split up the parametrized
tests (which would make the test files a lot longer and slightly more
difficult to read) this commit creates functions which return various types
of user json so that we can use these as the test parameters instead.
GOV.UK Design System recommends:
> You should also set the autocomplete attribute to email. This lets
> browsers autofill the email address on a user’s behalf if they’ve
> entered it previously.
Only doing this on the register and sign in forms because it’s unlikely
to be helpful where a user is trying to enter someone else’s email
address.
the api always returns exactly:
```
id
name
email_address
auth_type
current_session_id
failed_login_count
logged_in_at
mobile_number
organisations
password_changed_at
permissions
platform_admin
services
state
```
it does this through `models.py::User.serialize` – there is an old
Marshmallow `user_schema` in `schemas.py` but this isn’t used for
dumping return data, only parsing the json in the create user rest
endpoint.
This means we can rely on these keys always being in the dictionary.
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.
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
This removes the edit_folder_permission checks from the code, enabling
the folder permissions for all services.
This also fixes folder-related tests to set up appropriate user
permissions.
This should only be merged right after alphagov/notifications-api#2428,
when all other permission stories are done.
Platform admin users can access all template folders, so the folder
permissions form always displays everything as checked for them,
which makes it look like the form isn't actually working. We could
do the check based on folder data, but the field still wouldn't
have any effect on permissions. So instead, we hide it completely
for platform admin users.
Submitting the form will remove any folder permissions from the DB
for the platform admin user (which can still be created by changing
permissions on the template folder 'Manage' page), but that's only
relevant if a user stops being a platform admin but keeps their
Notify services.
When a user's email address is updated, we not allowing it to be changed
to a non-government email address. We now allow a non-gov email address
to be changed to another non-gov email address. Government email
addresses still cannot be changed to non-government email addresses.
Also fixes the link in the error message on the ChangeEmailAddress form -
this was being escaped before.
We should audit when a service manager changes a user profile that is not
their own. This can be recorded in our events table, which is currently
only used to record successful logins.
This adds two new types of event, `update_user_email` and
`update_user_mobile_number` which store the
- browser fingerprint
- IP address
- user id of the user being updated
- user id of the service manager making the change
- original email address and new email address (for `update_user_email`
events)
- original mobile number and new mobile number (for
`update_user_mobile_number` events)
Shows a count of how many folders that user can see - this doesn't do
anything smart with parent folder stuff, it's just "how many checkboxes
are ticked on the edit page".
* doesn't show if service has no folders
* doesn't show if service hasn't got folder permissions enabled
It:
- saves repetetive boilerplate code
- does some extra checks (eg checking for a `200` response)
- makes the codebase less confusing to consistently do the same thing in
the same way
remove `confirm` from `confirm_remove_user_from_service` as there's
only one action now that the initial confirmation prompt takes place
on the edit permissions page
