We could alternatively put the "add up to 100%" error on the page
using form-level errors [^1] and a custom flash message. Putting
the error on each field is slightly simpler and does make it clear
the issue is with all of the fields together.
[^1]: 22636b55ed
This replaces the slider with an integer input for each provider.
Unfortunately showing a variable number of inputs isn't easy to
achieve in WTForms [^1], but we think this is the least worst way
to do it vs e.g. not using WTForms at all.
[^1]: https://github.com/wtforms/wtforms/issues/736
This isn't used and showing priorities when we only have a single
provider or where they have no effect is unnecessarily confusing.
Removing the form makes it clearer that there's only one way to
adjust priorities for domestic SMS providers.
If we add another email or international SMS provider in future,
we would need to rewrite the form here anyway as the priorities
need to be adjusted in tandem, not individually.
This results in some new errors from flake8-bugbear:
```
B020: Loop control variable overrides iterable it iterates
```
I can't see an issue with the places that we do this, so have ignored
these warnings. If we keep getting these and they look fine, we can
create a global rule to ignore B020.
Using "primary" made sense when the other "secondary" provider was
new, but today we see them as equivalent and the terminology is a
bit confusing. In future we may add a third provider as well.
This fixes a bug where a third inactive provider would (potentially)
appear in place of one of the two active ones, depending on the order
of its identifier compared to the other two.
In future we may look at simplifying this to cope with more than two
active providers. For now, the existing UI will continue to work when
we add a new, inactive SMS provider for Reach.
We already had different functionality for email branding and will
soon be adding more for email branding pools.
Note that the "get_available_choices" class method was only used for
email branding - we can do it in the constructor for letters.
I've also tweaked some of the names to make them clearer e.g. that
the form is used to apply a change to a service.
I've constrained the scope of this change to avoid forms that may
be accessible by non-admins in the future.
This was a lot of code to be in a form and it's going to get even
more complicated with email branding pools. Moving it out means we
can also simplify the tests that target this code.
These are about to become a lot less similar to each other when we
add email branding pools. Note that the optional *args and *kwargs
weren't used anywhere.
I've often struggled to find the form associated with a particular
page due to the overlapping names e.g. "SetEmailBranding" sounds
more like the radio button form a user sees than "BrandingOptions".
Almost every form in forms.py also ends with "Form", so this also
makes the branding forms consistent with that naming convention.
On the ‘find user’ page it says ‘sms_auth’ instead of ‘Text message
code’.
This commit fixes that, and adds a handy formatter so it’s easier to do
the right thing in the future.
Daily volumes report: total volumes across the platform aggregated by whole business day (bst_date)
Volumes by service report: total volumes per service aggregated by the date range given.
NB: start and end dates are inclusive
This was causing some tests for the "estimate_volume" endpoint to
fail due to the surprising way that form handles "''":
- The form is the exclusive user of the ForgivingIntegerField [^1].
- The field secretly/silently converts "''" to the integer 0 [^2].
If the validations fail, we don't want to surprise the user with a
"0" when they didn't enter one. The field already handles this by
massaging the values in the __call__ method that generates the HTML
for the form [^3]. However, there are two scenarios:
- User submits field with '' - converted to integer 0.
- User submits field with '0' - remains as a string.
In the case where "value" is "''", the parent class will use the
converted value from form.data instead [^4]. This seems to be an
oversight and so we get either the integer 0 (from form.data) or
the string '0' (from the value kwarg). Complicado!
Previously it was a fluke that we avoided replaying the integer 0
to the user; the previous commit removes the fluke. This fixes the
conditional to always use the data in the "value" kwarg if it has
been provided, as it's meant to override "form.data".
[^1]: 9f63449384
[^2]: a22b8cf684/app/main/forms.py (L364)
[^3]: a22b8cf684/app/main/forms.py (L393)
[^4]: a22b8cf684 (diff-a1c8d24b22d4478fe71f75fd43b71b18dd82aae97bc63de84473a6da1902909bR215)
A snippet of old code [^1] in "activate_user" was forcing us to
keep "user_details" in the session until the very last moment with
a "try / finally" combo. But "activate_user" already knows the ID
of the user: it's the argument we pass to the function.
None of the functions called by "activate_user" require the session
to have that key either i.e. it's definitely redundant.
It's unclear if we need to pop the key from the session in both
"verify" methods - there are no tests covering this behaviour. For
now, we can at least make the flow clearer by adjusting where we do
the "pop" and the assignment.
[^1]: bbc7b173f0 (diff-d12384ece5ad90e9b66063fd3ab170453788d36b7e0babf49ee016f0a880f251L71)
This is to fix a bug where a user creates an account but doesn't
complete registration, then they are invited to a service that
changes their auth to email_auth, and then when they try to
complete registration they are still asked for sms code.
It should save users some pain, and reduce number of support tickets.
So we do not have to go into the db when we need to change user
auth.
We do not allow this for users who use webauthn. We do not want to
enable security downgrade for those users.
Previously we duplicated the "something else" email branding form
on its own page and embedded in the choices form (if it was the
only option). See [^1] for how this looks - it's inconsistent.
This DRYs-up the "something else" form by bypassing the choices
form when "something else" is the only option. I've also tweaked
the "Back" button to be consistent with this behaviour.
Making this change also simplifies the choices form, which we'll
be adding pool options to shortly. I'd like to make the letters
form consistent, but let's see how emails pan out first.
Note that the choices form will now show a single radio button if
"something else" is the only option. I think that's OK as nothing
will link to the page, and the form still works.
[^1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/4163#issuecomment-1050088088
Currently an integer of 0 doesn't get shown because it fails the
truthiness check in the govuk-frontend template [^1]. Note that
we can't just do str(value) as for None this would be "None".
[^1]: fd4952f1c0/src/govuk/components/input/template.njk (L51)
Previously we weren't sure if the cause of this exception was what
the comment below suggested [1]. I've now verified this from:
Letter not found for service 0bd1d970-f11c-40e1-8319-4baefe6239d7 and file aa07ed06-3161-4795-93b3-b45d7c576af9
I checked that aa07ed06-3161-4795-93b3-b45d7c576af9 exists already
as a notification i.e. the comment is correct and we're not sending
users to a 404 page. It's possible there are other scenarios where
the comment is wrong, but I don't think it's worth keeping the error.
[1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/4159
We want to be able to set the free allowance for a service to 0, but the
form was not allowing this - it gave an error message of `Cannot be
empty`. This can be fixed by changing the WTForms validator from
`DataRequired` (which coerces 0 to falsey) to the `InputRequired`
validator.
