Since we have added a new, 5th permission the existing permissions
should be relabelled so that the five make sense as a coherent set.
We especially want to make sure that:
- the labels work against the checkboxes and against the tick/crosses on
the manage users page (a long time ago this page was layed out
differently so didn’t have space for full labels)
- there is no confusion between usage and reports
This commit also:
- re-adds a line about what all users can see (‘sent messages’) but
continues to omit the additional bullet points about templates and
team members (because we think this is clear enough from reading the
permissions)
- refactors the `Form` subclass so that the content and order of the
permissions only have to be defined once
- brings back the ‘permissions’ legend on the `fieldset`
Our research and prototyping around ‘basic view’ found that:
- a lot of users who send messages rarely or never look at the dashboard
(yet it’s the first page they see when they sign in)
- team managers like the idea of taking away things that users don’t
need in order to make the interface simpler
We’ve disentangled the simpler way of sending messages from being part
of ‘basic view’. This means we can give managers the option of taking
away the dashboard as an independent choice, not something that’s
wrapped up in a separate ‘view’.
I think that this checkbox is a more straightforward proposition than
‘basic view’ ever was (despite all the work we did to explain it and
develop the nested checkbox pattern). In research users would often
explain the feature back to us as being about hiding the dashboard – we
should try to make Notify operate in terms of concepts that come
naturally to people wherever possible.
If you have a lot of services it’s hard to find the one you’re looking
for if the sort order is a mixture of `created_by` and which ones belong
to an organisation.
Since the templates within the services are sorted alphabetically it
makes sense to also sort the services alphabetically.
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.
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`).
> "normal" is a word that does not really tell much, could we maybe name
> this constant better?
‘Non-scheduled’ more explicitly describes that statues in this set.
Each of these methods does the same thing, so this refactors into an
attribute lookup, which saves writing boilerplate code and makes it
easier to add new properties.
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.
- 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
We had kept the original platform-admin page at `/platform-admin` and
created a new page, `/platform-admin-new` for the new platform admin
page. Now that the numbers on both pages look ok we no longer need both
pages, so can replace the original page.
One of the big things we found in user research was that people were
uncertain what the effect of giving someone basic view was.
So in the spirit of ‘show don’t tell’, this commit adds a way for users
to preview basic view. They can go into the preview and click around as
much as they like, just as if they really had the basic view assigned to
them.
Once they have seen enough they can return to the settings page where
they can decide whether or not to switch basic view on for real.
This commit changes the form that the user sees when inviting or editing
another user, if the service has the ‘caseworking’ permission set.
This will allow creating a new type of user, one who only has the
`send_messages` permission, without the `view_activity` permission.
We are doing this because we think there are a number of services with a
lot of users who don’t need to see the dashboard, or the other team
members, and that we can make a simpler interface for these users.
We’ve had a user who’s said:
> Seems configured callbacks cannot be removed once they’re set as the
> fields have a presence check. Is that intentional?
This means it’s not working as they expect. Rather than have to go and
change stuff in the database for them, let’s make it work as they’d
expect.
Only lets you clear the form if you remove both the token and the URL.
In API, the endpoint for the new platform admin stats page has been
moved to a platform stats blueprint. This means we now need a platform
stats client.
* Added a new method to the ComplaintApiClient to get the total
complaints by date range from the API.
* Added a new method to the ServiceAPIClient to get the new platform
admin stats data from the API.
Added a page which lets users with the 'manage_service' permission change the
contact link for their service. There are no links to this page yet
since only services using document download will need to set a contact
link.
A new platform admin page Email complaints has been added to surface those complaints.
Eventually the complaints will be visible to the services so they can remove the email address from their mailing list.
Next thing to implement is "x email complaints" warning on the platform admin summary page.
we're not actually looking at the detailed service aspects - just
the stats. We're doing this in three places:
* dashboard
* notification activity page
* when checking jobs to see if we're over the daily limit
change these places to use a new api endpoint (service/id/statistics),
which hopefully be a little more performant, and will definitely be a
little more organised - moving away from generic endpoints with loads
of optional parameters.
We still need the detailed endpoints for the platform admin page tho.
Depends on https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-api/pull/1865
For both SMS senders and email reply to addresses this commit adds:
- a delete link
- a confirmation loop
It doesn’t let users delete:
- default SMS senders or reply to addresses (they always have to have
one)
- inbound numbers
It assumes that the API will allow updating of an attribute named
`active` on the respective database rows. It could work in a different
way. We can’t do complete deletion though because these will still be
keyed to notifications.
Redis is giving us a big performance boost (it’s roughly halved the
median request time on the admin app).
Once we’re confident that it’s working properly[1] we can eke out a bit
more performance from it by keeping the caches alive for longer. As
far as I can tell we’re still using Redis in a very low-volume way[2],
so increasing the number of things we’re storing shouldn’t start taxing
our Redis server at all. But reducing the number of times we have to
hit the API to refresh the cache _should_ result in some performance
increase.
---
1. ie we’re not seeing instances of stale caches not being invalidated
2. We have 2.5G of available space in Redis. Here is our current usage:
```
used_memory:7728960
used_memory_human:7.37M
used_memory_rss:7728960
used_memory_peak:16563776
used_memory_peak_human:15.79M
used_memory_lua:37888
```
This is easier to read than having to understand the arguments 1…n of
the cache decorator are ‘magic’, and gives us more flexibility about
how the cache keys are formatted, eg being able to add words in the
middle of them.
Also changes the key format for all templates to be
`service-{service_id}-templates` instead of `templates-{service_id}`
because then it’s clearer what the ID represents.
A lot of the frequently-used pages in the admin app rely on the API to
get templates.
So this commit adds three new caches:
- a single template version (including a key without a version number,
which is the current version)
- all the templates for a service
- all versions of a template
The first will be the most crucial for performance, but there’s not much
cost to adding the other two.
`@cache.delete('user', 'user_id')` is easier to read and understand than
`@cache.delete('user', key_from_args=[1])`. This will become even more
apparent if we have to start doing stuff like `key_from_args=[1, 5]`,
which is a lot more opaque than just saying
`'service_id', 'template_id'`.
It does make the implementation a bit more complex, but I’m not too
worried about that because:
- the tests are solid
- it’s nicely encapsulated
This `*params` argument seems to be copy/pasted boilerplate. It’s not
used by any consumers of this client, and makes it harder to write a
decorator for this function.
Accepting an invite changes:
- the `user_to_service` list of users returned by `GET /service/<id>`
- the `services` list return by `GET /user/<id>`
The latter change is causing the functional tests to fail.
In the same way, and for the same reasons that we’re caching the service
object.
Here’s a sample of the data returned by the API – so we should make sure
that any changes to this data invalidate the cache.
If we ever change a user’s phone number (for example) directly in the
database, then we will need to invalidate this cache manually.
```python
{
'data':{
'organisations':[
'4c707b81-4c6d-4d33-9376-17f0de6e0405'
],
'logged_in_at':'2018-04-10T11:41:03.781990Z',
'id':'2c45486e-177e-40b8-997d-5f4f81a461ca',
'email_address':'test@example.gov.uk',
'platform_admin':False,
'password_changed_at':'2018-01-01 10:10:10.100000',
'permissions':{
'42a9d4f2-1444-4e22-9133-52d9e406213f':[
'manage_api_keys',
'send_letters',
'manage_users',
'manage_templates',
'view_activity',
'send_texts',
'send_emails',
'manage_settings'
],
'a928eef8-0f25-41ca-b480-0447f29b2c20':[
'manage_users',
'manage_templates',
'manage_settings',
'send_texts',
'send_emails',
'send_letters',
'manage_api_keys',
'view_activity'
],
},
'state':'active',
'mobile_number':'07700900123',
'failed_login_count':0,
'name':'Example',
'services':[
'6078a8c0-52f5-4c4f-b724-d7d1ff2d3884',
'6afe3c1c-7fda-4d8d-aa8d-769c4bdf7803',
],
'current_session_id':'fea2ade1-db0a-4c90-93e7-c64a877ce83e',
'auth_type':'sms_auth'
}
}
```
