If you submit the rename organisation form without making any changes
you will get an error saying that the name is currently in use. This is
true because it’s being used by the current organisation.
However your intention is probably not to actually change anything, so
we can just redirect back to the settings page.
This is the same thing we do when renaming services:
60f5b74904/app/main/views/service_settings.py (L99-L100)
No tests are now using the `client` fixture directly so we can rename
it.
Python convention is to use an `_underscore` for things which should be
considered semi private.
This should discourage people from writing new tests with these old
fixtures.
New tests should always use `client_request`.
Want to be logged in with a different user? Call
`client_request.login(user)` first.
Don’t want to be logged in? Call `client_request.logout()` first (most
of our tests need to be logged in).
Need an instance of `Response` object not an instance of
`BeautifulSoup`? Use `client_request.get_response` or
`client_request.post_response`.
Need to pass in a URL, not arguments to `url_for`? Use
`client_request.get_url(…)` or `client_request.post_url(…)`.
Need to pass in a URL and get a response back? Use
`client_request.get_response_from_url(…)` or
`client_request.post_response_from_url(…)`.
Some tests use the `client` fixture but don’t call any of its methods.
The reason for doing this is because the test depends on something in
the request context.
This commit replaces all those instances with `client_request`, which
also sets the request context.
These tests are the last ones that still use the `client` fixture. By
replacing it with `client_request` we will be able to say that no tests
should be using the `client` fixture directly.
We have a `client_request` fixture which does a bunch of useful stuff
like:
- checking the status code of the response
- returning a `BeautifulSoup` object
Lots of our tests still use an older fixture called `client`. This is
not as good because it:
- returns a raw `Response` object
- doesn’t do the additional checks
- means our tests contain a lot of repetetive boilerplate like `page = BeautifulSoup(response.data.decode('utf-8'), 'html.parser')`
This commit converts all the tests which had a `client.get(…)` or
`client.post(…)` statement to use their equivalents on `client_request`
instead.
Subsequent commits will remove uses of `client` in other tests, but
doing it this way means the work can be broken up into more manageable
chunks.
We have a `client_request` fixture which does a bunch of useful stuff
like:
- checking the status code of the response
- returning a `BeautifulSoup` object
Lots of our tests still use an older fixture called `client`. This is
not as good because it:
- returns a raw `Response` object
- doesn’t do the additional checks
- means our tests contain a lot of repetetive boilerplate like `page = BeautifulSoup(response.data.decode('utf-8'), 'html.parser')`
This commit converts all the tests which had a `client.login(…)`
statement to use `client_request` (which is already logged in by
default).
Subsequent commits will remove uses of `client` in other tests, but
doing it this way means the work can be broken up into more manageable
chunks.
We added a new argument to `client_request.get` and
`client_request.post` to specify that it should return a raw `Response`
object rather than an instance of `BeautifulSoup`.
This is useful because sometimes we need to look at stuff like the
response headers.
However it turns out we already have a separate method for this, so
rather than invent something new I think it’s better to stick with the
thing we already have.
We have a `client_request` fixture which does a bunch of useful stuff
like:
- checking the status code of the response
- returning a `BeautifulSoup` object
A few of our tests still use an older fixture called
`logged_in_client_with_session`. It’s not clear how this is different
from `logged_in_client`, which we have replaced with `client_request`.
So this commit goes ahead and converts all the tests using
`logged_in_client_with_session` to use `client_request` instead.
We have a `client_request` fixture which does a bunch of useful stuff
like:
- checking the status code of the response
- returning a `BeautifulSoup` object
Lots of our tests still use an older fixture called `logged_in_client`.
This is not as good because:
- it returns a raw `Response` object
- doesn’t do the additional checks
- means our tests contain a lot of repetetive boilerplate like `page = BeautifulSoup(response.data.decode('utf-8'), 'html.parser')`
This commit converts all the tests using `logged_in_client` to:
use `client_request` instead.
We have a `client_request` fixture which does a bunch of useful stuff
like:
- checking the status code of the response
- returning a `BeautifulSoup` object
For most tests of a platform admin view we used `platform_admin_client`
instead. This is not as good because it returns a raw `Response` object
and doesn’t do the additional checks.
This commit converts all the tests using `platform_admin_client` to:
use new `client_request` and log in as `platform_admin_user` before
making any requests.
This is also nice because it makes any test easy to parametrize with
additional users, for example to test differences in behaviour dependant
on being platform admin or not.
To render text in an SVG consistently the system rendering the SVG must
have the fonts specified by the SVG installed.
If the fonts are not installed then the renderer will fall back to a
system font and the text will look different. This is especially bad
news for branding where the right font is an integral part of any brand.
To fix this, the text should instead be converted to `<path>` elements.
This process is sometimes called ‘outlining’.
A few of our logos had this problem, and I’ve fixed most of them by
hand. Adding this validation will stop the problem, coming up again.
Some users have reported a problem with the received text message
report:
> I have tested the reply service but in the excel report the mobile
> number is showing as 4.47900E+23. How can I change the format so that
> it is show the mobile number that has replied?
This is happening because Excel is interpreting a phone number in the
format `447900900123` as a number in
[scientific notation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation),
in other words 4.479 × 10<sup>23</sup>.
`447900900123` is the format that our provider is giving us the number
in – there’s no guarantee it will always be in this format.
We can prevent this behaviour by putting spaces in the numbers. Excel
and Google Sheets won’t try to convert a string with spaces into a
number.
I think we used to do this for the sent text messages report but
probably stopped because we decided it was better to keep the phone
number in the same format as it had been supplied to us for
reconcilliation purposes.
This makes a couple of changes:
- Most importantly, it wraps the setup code in a conditional so that
developers don't need to have a DSN set to start the app locally.
- Secondly, it removes the redundant call to "set_level". Originally
I thought the integration was sending info/warning events, but this
isn't the case [1] and even if it was, "set_level" affects the level
of custom events [2], not the level they are dispatched at.
[1]: 4c09f3203d/sentry_sdk/integrations/logging.py (L56)
[2]: https://docs.sentry.io/platforms/python/guides/logging/usage/set-level/
This updates the `get_notifications_for_service` of the
`NotificationApiClient` to make POST request to the api when the `to`
field is provided. This is done so that we avoid logging personal
details such as email addreses.
If the `to` field is not present, the method will make a GET reqeust and
there will be no change to how it works.
Otherwise we start spamming Sentry with every 404 error log. Even
if the erorr is a 5xx, it depends on how we handle it in the calling
code as to whether we would want to consider it an error.
I didn't spot this in initial testing on Preview because the 404s in
Preview are only triggered due to the functional tests, which only run
when we're deploying something.
Arguably we shouldn't be logging at error level in our Python Client,
since we're also raising an exception [1]. But changing that would be
a can of worms as it's not an internal-only library.
[1]: 74a958de00/notifications_python_client/base.py (L118)
This will capture and send various events to Sentry:
- Any unhandled exceptions.
- Any logger.error calls.
- Some request traces.
The latter are severely limited to avoid going over the free tier
limits for Sentry, and to avoid excess effort on our end.
If an organisation doesn’t have any live services then there’s no data
to download. To make things less confusing we should hide the link in
this case.
This commit also modifies the existing test so that the assertions are
consistent.
