WTForms lets you pre-populate a form’s value by passing it in as an
argument to the constructor.
This will be good for us because it will let us access that value in
the constructor later on.
These helper functions for modifying a service permission were just
floating around loose in the view code.
A much better home for them is on the model. This will also make it
easy to reuse them in other views if we ever need to.
We have a lot of places in settings where we update something by passing
in the `service_id`. `current_service` already knows about `service_id`,
so it’s cleaner to encapsulate these updates inside the model.
Making people use a property is a sure way to make sure they’re spelling
the name of the property correctly, and allows us to easily swap out
properties that call through to the underlying JSON, and properties
which are implemented as methods.
The API should always return something in the JSON for a property, even
if it’s just `None`.
There’s a lot of code in service settings which:
- talks to the API directly through the clients
- passes that information through to the Jinja template
By encapsulating this logic in the service model:
- the Jinja template can access the data directly
- the logic can be reused across multiple methods
Making people use a property is a sure way to make sure they’re spelling
the name of the property correctly, and allows us to easily swap out
properties that call through to the underlying JSON, and properties
which are implemented as methods.
2/3 of our incomplete requests to go live are incomplete because the
Data Sharing and Financial Agreement isn’t signed.
We reckon we can be pushier about this by saying it’s ‘incomplete’ where
we know the agreement is signed.
Where the agreement is signed we should confirm this, rather than make
the line disappear. This is so it makes more sense to someone who sees
it as ‘incomplete’, signs it, then comes back to the page.
If we don’t know whether or not the agreement is signed we should wait
until someone has got in touch with us by requesting to go live to
figure it out. So that’s why we’re not showing that line at all.
This tag was not showing up in the call to the Zendesk API because the
return value of a generator is not included as a member of that
generator (on things `yield`ed from it are).
At the moment we manually tag tickets as they come in so we can analyse
how many of each type we’re getting.
Further, we manually tag all the request to go live tickets once a month
to analyse how many are complete/incomplete.
All this tagging is useful, but quite time consuming. Notify already
knows this information and – using the Zendesk API – we can tag them
automatically.
I’ve checked with Holly and this is the taxonomy we want to use.
Added a new row to the settings table, 'Post class', which shows the
default letter class of a service and is only visible to Platform Admin.
Also added a new page to enable Platform Admin users to change the
default letter class for a service - this only has two options at the
moment, 1st class only and 2nd class only.
There’s something that feels a bit off about not being able to see the
name of the currently-selected branding when you land on the page.
Putting it at the top also means that you can easily switch back to it
if you change your mind.
Since GDPR came into effect it’s less clear about whether we can
contact teams for user research purposes.
If we make people opt-in (or not) we know we’re safe to contact them (or
not).
Since we mostly care about how services are using Notify for real (ie
live services) or services that are considering adopting it (ie those
who have contacted us with a question) it feels like the go-live process
is the most appropriate place to collect this consent.
Now that we’re a more mature platform we don’t care so much about the
load that one service might put on our platform.
We do care about intended volumes for two reasons:
- modelling the benefits that services get from using Notify
- managing stocks of envelopes (while our letter volumes are small
enough that they could be skewed by one new service)
Changing to the ‘how many per year’ question also has the benefit of
mapping directly to the data we store in the ‘beta partners’
spreadsheet.
Currently we keep track of live services in the ‘beta partners’
spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JYhE5sJaOJUVMPPDenO2eKqElC75Rygxb1_2mpRKy98/edit#gid=503930061
Every time a service goes live we need to enter some data into the
spreadsheet about that service. Most of that data is copied from the
request to go live ticket.
This commit adds a line to the ticket with all the data needed by the
spreadsheet. It’s in the same order as in the spreadsheet, and it’s
tab-delimted so it should paste right on in there.
Setting the branding_style to 'None' causes the
API to remove the email_branding field from a
service model. The branding request page
controller was depending on that value being
to present get the brand type.
The email preview page (used in an iframe on
various pages) wasn't able to recognise a
branding_style of 'None', causing a blank page to
render.
We often check that a service has an appropriate text message sender as
a condition of them going live. We don’t mention this anywhere.
The services for whom GOVUK is definitely not an appropriate sender are
those in local government. As we have more of these teams starting to
use Notify, we should streamline the process by making this check
automated.
This commit adds that check, for teams who:
- have text message templates
- have self-declared as NHS or local government
At the moment there’s nothing in Notify that says the logo on letter
templates can be changed from ‘HM Government’. While some people guess
that it’s possible, or are motivated enough to enquire, others might be
assuming that the branding can’t be changed (and thus deciding Notify
letters aren’t for them).
In the future we should make this process slicker (eg with a file
upload) but the easiest, quickest improvement to make for now is:
- let people know that the branding can be changed
- direct them to support if they do want to change it
Service contact details are needed if the upload document permission is
enabled - this used to be a link but services can now choose to use a
link, email address or phone number. The form to add or change service
contact details now gives these options and validates the data according
to the type of contact details provided.
When validating phone numbers we can't use the existing validation
because we want to allow landlines too, so there is a basic check that
the phone number is the right length and doesn't include certain
characters.
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
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.
