We’re going to make it possible for some users to be members of a
service, but not have any permissions (not even `view_activity`).
There are some pages that these users should still be able to see
These are the pages that a user with ‘basic view’ would have been able
to see, excluding those that let them send messages.
The one downside of skipping the template page is that you no longer
get such strong confirmation that you’ve picked the correct template.
You still see the preview of the template, but it’s further down the
page, and the name of the template has disappeared.
This commit adds the name of the template to the page title, to:
- have some continuity from the previous page
- make it easier to double-check you’ve chosen the correct template
If you only send messages then there’s no longer much point in the
template page. It now, for you, only has one action – ‘Send’.
This commit changes the journey for these users so they go straight from
clicking the name of the template to the page where you enter the phone
number or email address.
This is better because it reduces the number of steps a user has to
click through to send a message.
This journey is what we were previously calling ‘basic view’. But this
changes makes it automatically available to anyone who would benefit
from it. It removes the complexity of:
- having to opt in to basic view at a service level
- having to choose on a per-user basis who has basic view
- understanding the nuance between basic view and only choosing the
‘Send messages’ permission
Users who will still see the template page are:
- those who can edit templates – they need the ‘edit’ link
- users with the manage API keys permission – they need a place to get
the template ID
‘Upload recipients’ and ‘Send to one recipient’ have always been
slightly clunky phrases.
Now that basic view jumps straight into the ‘Send to one recipient’
flow there’s no way for users to get to the ‘Upload recipients’ flow.
By adding a link to it from the ‘Send to one recipient’ flow it’s
possible for users of basic view to access it.
But we don’t want to introduce too much inconsistency between basic view
and admin view because users will be migrating from one to another. They
might also be talking to their manager, who wouldn’t be able to tell
them where to click if they were looking at two completely different
interfaces.
This also means that we can keep the left-hand navigation in basic view
nice and simple with the two options (‘Templates’ and ‘Sent messages’),
rather than trying to introduce something like ‘Send one message’ and
‘Send lots of messages’ later on.
Includes moving code that tests an API call to
update the service with the new branding to the
preview step submission.
Also includes a change to the HTTP params sent by
the set-email-branding step. Think it was missed
out of this PR:
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/1843
...so was never changed to 'branding_style'.
- corrects target page for set_email_branding to
new preview step instead of itself
- removed check for helper method being called in
email page test
- updates expected result for test of global
headers to include changes to `frame-src`
- updates navigation config with brand preview page
This is the existing behaviour. It’s broken by this issue in WTForms
2.2.1: https://github.com/wtforms/wtforms/issues/401
This commit hand-crafts the default value, because WTForms is ignoring
the `default` argument on the form object attribute.
Not really sure how this ever worked 🤔
There are some teams who send jobs on a daily/weekly basis. They have
team members who only use Notify for this purpose. So they would
probably benefit from basic view, because they don’t need to see the
dashboard.
This commit:
- adds a new item (uploaded files) to the basic view navigation for
teams that have sent at least one job
- makes the job pages visible to basic view users
I think we should do this now, rather than as a later enhancement to
basic view. We only have one chance to announce the feature, so teams
who do send jobs may otherwise discount it as not useful for them and
the opportunity to have them use it is lost.
Calling `.set()` with `True` stores the byte string `'True'` which
cannot subsequently be decoded from JSON (because boolean values in
JSON are lowercase, ie `true`).
This is better than just keying into the JSON because it means you get
an exception straight away when looking up a key that doesn’t exist
(which via mocking you could ordinarily miss).
Having the service floating about as JSON is a bit flakey. Could easily
introduce a mistake where you mistype the name of a key and silently
get `None`.
Also means doing awkward things like `if 'permission' in
current_service['permissions']`, whereas for users we can do the
much cleaner `user.has_permission()`.
So this commit:
- introduces a model
- adds a `.has_permission` method similar to the one we have for users
Sometimes when setting up a service you might have a few very similar
templates, in which only a small amount of content. Or you might even
have a few of services, which are used by different teams but have
similar templates.
Copy and pasting, especially from one service to another, is a pain.
This commit makes it easier by allowing users to copy an existing
template when choosing to add a new one, instead of starting from
scratch.
At the moment the dashboard does two API calls to find out if a service
has:
1. Scheduled jobs
2. Normal jobs
API calls are slow because they are synchronous, go over the network and
touch the database. We can’t cache these API calls because:
- a scheduled job could become a normal job at any time
- the statistics on a normal job are constantly updating
However there are plenty of services which don’t have any jobs, and
probably never will. And finding out if a service has any jobs is
reliably cacheable (because as soon as a service creates its first job
it has some jobs).
So this commit:
- refactors the way we get scheduled/normal jobs into the job_api_client
to make the view a bit slimmer
- makes an additional, Redis-wrapped call to find out if any jobs exist
before trying to get the jobs
This should result in a speedup on the dashboard, and can be used in the
future if there’s anywhere else we want to show or hide something
depending on whether a service has created any jobs (I have some ideas).
Upcoming changes to API will mean that by default its
`get_notifications_for_service` DAO function will return one-off
notifications. In most cases this is what we want, but the message log
page should not show one-off notifications. By passing in the `include_one_off=False`
option to API we can ensure that this page will stay the same when API
changes.
Two tests retained the old syntax because of mocker conflict:
when logging in as a user through client_request, it sets up a
side_effect on user_api_client.get_user to the user you log in
as. If you later want to set return_value for get_user to
something else, problems start :d.
> Suggest making the H1 visible here for consistency, but also to make
> it clear to users what they’re looking at.
> This screen is similar to – but not exactly the same as – the
> individual text, email and letter dashboard screens from Admin view,
> so the H1 could help to distinguish it from them for users who may
> have interacted with both.
From Karl:
> Templates – this should be consistent with Admin view. Users may
> switch from Basic to Admin view (or vice versa), they will also
> interact with users who have a different view or permissions to them.
> Neither should have to learn new interfaces and language if possible.
> ‘Send a message’ was a nice, active label – but Notify options aren’t
> usually actions. If we’re going to change this we should be consistent
> across both Admin and Basic views.
> For the same reason, I have rejected ‘see’, ‘search’ and ‘view sent
> messages’. It will be interesting to see in user testing whether users
> read ‘sent messages’ as ‘send messages’.
- name
- email
- phone number
- services
- last login
- failed login attempts if any
The view can be accessed from results of find_users_by_email
logged_in_at added to User serialization on admin frontend as
a part of this work
This included:
- creating a new form SearchUsersByEmailForm with validation
on its search field
- introducing 400 status to the view if the form does not validate
- fixing the POST request data structure in the tests (it was
incorrect before and uncaught due to lack of validation and mocking
the response from the API.
Commit 58cc1604a7 sanitises any non-ascii
characters in the headers. CSV filenames get used as a header value, so
this fixed a bug that occurred when non-ascii characters were used.
The CSV filename also gets used as part of the metadata when uploading
the file to S3. Since the S3 metadata can only contain ASII characters,
we also need to sanitise the filename before uploading it to S3.
Things we’ve noticed from looking at real data that we could handle in a
smarter way:
- removing numbers (there might be a tom.smith2@dept.gov.uk if tom.smith
is already taken)
- removing middle initials (again, these tend to be used for
disambiguation and aren’t included when we ask people for their names)
- ignoring email addresses which only have someone’s initial, not their
first name (because we can’t make a decent guess in this case)
Most people’s names, especially in government are in the format
firstname.lastname@department.gov.uk. This means that you can pretty
reliably guess that their name is ‘Firstname Lastname’.
When users are invited to Notify we know their email address already.
So this commit pre-populates the registration form based on this guess.
This is a nice little detail, but it should also stop the browser
pre-filling the name field with someone’s email address (which I think
happens because the browser assumes a registration form will have an
email field).
