The Design System has standardised on back links being at the top of the
page, decorated with a small text-coloured arrow.
I think this makes more sense than having them at the bottom, because it
suggests, in some way, being able to go back before commiting to any of
the forms on the page. Whereas the things at the bottom of the page
should be performing actions on what’s in the page.
The reason for making this change now is that it de-clutters the area
around the green buttons. This was presenting a design challenge where
multiple levels of interaction were happening in the same form. Moving
these back links to the top of the page should mean that, in these
complicated forms, there’s one fewer thing to compete for the user’s
attention.
I’ve componentised this into a `page_header` macro so that the change is
easier to roll out and maintain.
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 shouldn’t be making services live without an agreement in place. In
order to have an agreement in place we need to know what organisation
operates the service.
If a service comes along but belongs to an organisation we don’t know
about then we should create that organisation. This commits removes the
link, which should force this to happen.
Settings looked at `domains.yml` when users were making go live requests
or email branding requests.
This will allow us to remove the `domains.yml` file, by using
information about organisations that is now stored in the database
instead.
Dealing with users who request to go live but haven’t completed all the
steps still represents a significant support overhead for our team.
We’ve made some improvements to the percentage of incomplete requests
with a better page design, but ultimately because it still shows the
button people think it’s OK to press the button while some of the items
on the page still say [Not completed].
We can do this now because organisations are in the database, which
means we can mark the agreement signed as soon as we get it back,
without having to deploy code.
We keep getting people requesting branding when they already have the
branding they want set. Seems like they don’t realise we’re doing it
automatically. This might help.
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
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.
When we get a request for new branding it’s helpful to quickly see what
the service’s current branding is, so we can get a better sense of why
they want to change it.
It should be:
- if they have said they are going to send by a certain channel, show
the extra required task(s) for that channel
- if they haven’t said, infer from which templates they have
If you have email templates but haven’t told us what volumes you’re
sending we should assume you are going to send emails. We should only
stop asking you to add a reply-to address once you’ve told us for sure
you’re not going to send any emails.
This also applies to changing the text message sender – this should only
be hidden if you don’t have text message templates or you’ve said you’re
not going to be sending any text messages.
We have a number of go live requests where people have said they’re
sending text messages, but haven’t changed the text message sender from
the default of `GOVUK` (we ask teams who aren’t central government to do
this). At the moment we don’t prompt them to, because we look at whether
they have text message templates as indicative of whether they’re going
to send text messages.
Now that we explicitly ask for the volumes of text messages they’re
sending we should use this to determine whether or not we prompt them to
change their text message sender because it’s a stronger signal of
intent than what templates they’ve set up.
We have a number of go live requests where people have said they’re
sending email, but haven’t set up a reply-to address. At the moment we
don’t prompt them to, because we look at whether they have email
templates as indicative of whether they’re going to send email.
Now that we explicitly ask for the volumes of email they’re sending we
should use this to determine whether or not we prompt them to set up an
email reply to address because it’s a stronger signal of intent than
what templates they’ve set up.
At the moment it 500s because it can’t format the `None` values as
numbers.
In the future we will stop people requesting to go live until they’ve
provided this info. For now it has to be optional.
Things we talked about:
• asking users to write the number 'as numerals' or 'using digits' isn't
very plain English
• the style guide says to use an example in the error `..., like 5,000`
but not if you have an example in the hint text, so we can't do that
• I have reservations about 'correct format', because it sounds odd if
you're not describing something like a phone number, NI number or
credit card number.
Looking back through Request to Go Live tickets on Zendesk.
---
I got to September before I found anything that would count as invalid
under our new rules:
> Possibly around 1,000,000- not planning on implementing emails yet but
might change
I'll keep looking, but if most people enter the number according to the
hint example we might be able to go with a much simpler error just
prompting them to enter a number – no convoluted descriptions of what we
mean by a number
There seemed to be more problems when the Qs were about start volume and
peak volume. Users felt the need to explain their plans more.
Using 'number' instead of 'volume' is more explicit too – so that
probably helps.
In terms of errors:
`Enter the number of emails you expect to send`
`Enter the number of text messages you expect to send`
`Enter the number of letters you expect to send`
– will probably do it, right?
It’s annoying and very ‘computer says no’ to make people type `0` in a
box. We can see from our analytics that this error is affecting about 7%
of users trying to go live.
This commit relaxes the validation to only require a number greater than
1 for at least one of the questions.
It also lets people enter their numbers comma-separated – like our
examples suggest – but normalises them to integers before sending them
over to the API.
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
Most of the existing platform admin buttons on the service settings
page used to issue GET requests to switch service settings. This
means they weren't protected by CSRF. On top of that as our number
of service permissions increases over time a lot of buttons on the
page made it hard to work with.
To fix these issues we replace most of the buttons with rows in the
platform admin settings table. Each setting has a 'Change' link that
leads to a page with an On/Off switch form.
This removes "research mode" switch completely since we're planning
to deprecate it in the future and we don't expect to switch any new
services into research mode at the moment.
Most service permissions are now handled by a shared endpoint that
is parameterized with the permission name. Some permissions that
require some additional logic before they can be toggled (like document
upload, which requires setting a contact address) have separate
initial endpoints that redirect to `set_service_permission`.
"Archive", "Suspend" and "Resume" actions are kept as buttons since
they display a confirmation banner (which is a CSRF-protected form)
and they're not easily represented as an On/Off switch.
This adds a new OnOffField class that implements a boolean field
that is rendered as two On / Off radio buttons. This allows us to
avoid comparing 'on' and 'off' string values in the views since
the field takes care of transforming form data into python booleans.
This also adds a form class that can be used for any single On / Off
switch forms (e.g. service permissions).
This adds a preview pane which is visible when updating a letter brand.
If JavaScript is enabled, the preview pane shows on the set-letter-branding
page, and submitting the form saves updates the letter brand for a service
immediately. If Javascript is not enabled, there is a separate 'Preview email
branding' page which shows a preview of the brand and has a 'Save' button on it.
Because some people don’t know they can put their own logo on letters:
> The HM Government Logo is at the top of the letter and we can't see
> a way of putting the [organisation] logo on
> We are intending to use the letter template feature for the first time
> and wondered whether the branding is configurable or whether the HM
> Government header is the standard default.
> Can we replace HM Government logo with our own in the letter? IF yes,
> then how?
> I don't seem to be able to set the branding on the letters to be
> [organisation]. it's always HM government. Is there something that
> needs enabling for this account?
No-one actually wants the HM Government logo (no-one is sending real
letters using it). So we should leave the space blank and put a button
there prompting people to add their own logo.
it wouldn't show search if there were under a certain amount of letter
or email branding options - however we know there will always be more
than that amount so lets remove some complexity.
Also, rename the SearchTemplatesForm because it can search anything -
it just prompts you to search by name is all.
We were getting all letter logos from a method in the email branding
client. Since we will be adding more client methods to deal with
letters, it makes things clearer to separate the email and letter
branding clients.
We are moving from the postage being set on the service to being set on
the template. Once a service has been migrated to have the new
permission they should no longer be able to set the postage at a service
level, only at the template level.
specifically - don't use `pytest.mark.xfail` directly in parametrize,
instead use `pytest.param(*args, marks=pytest.mark.xfail)`. the old way
is deprecated in pytest4 - for more information see
https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/deprecations.html#marks-in-pytest-mark-parametrize
Also, make this an error in pytest.ini so if someone adds a new xfail,
it'll crash
Only users who work for government can accept the terms of use. This
will save us from having to email these requesters back telling them
they need to find someone else to submit the request.
