This was a minor issue in a recent incident [1].
We don't want people emailing us directly:
- It's harder to collaborate on replies than in Zendesk, where I
can see who's editing.
- We can't take advantage of macros like we can in Zendesk.
- People emailing us directly creates an unnecessary distraction
and it's easy to lose track. We want to minimise distractions in
an incident situation.
- We use notify-support@ for monitoring, so we don't want noise.
[1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eArpcYoCmhlgB45FZpGj1_HnkAgpgtgwr-KBiUq7h8c/edit#
This adds a link next to the organisation team members which lets
them be removed from the organisation. Service team members have
their own page and the link to remove them appears there. For
organisation team members, we don't currently have any other
information we want to show or any other actions to perform. As
a result, this change uses the 'Team members' page to show the
confirmation banner.
The endpoint called 'edit_user_org_permissions' was renamed to
'edit_organisation_user' and some of the existing code around deleting
org users (which didn't work) was changed.
Note that this is copied from the same change made to the rename service
page:
1190e4541b
The original idea behind was to always ask users to re-enter their
password any time:
- we want them to be sure that they want to do what they’re about to do
- we want to be sure it’s really the user trying to do the thing (and
not someone malicious)
In reality we:
- removed this from the initial place it was added (a descendent of the
‘suspend service’ feature)
- only ever added it to the ‘rename service’ and ‘rename organisation’
features
So in reality it’s not a pattern we have persisted with. Arguably there
are several things you can now do in the admin app without re-entering
your password which are much more high consequence than changing the
service name.
Also, with browser autofill there’s a lot less chance that forcing
someone to re-enter a password really gives much defence against an
unattended laptop, for example.
So this commit removes the need to re-enter your password when renaming
an organisation.
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 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.
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.
If the organisation table contains an entry for `agreement_signed_by_id`
and for `agreement_signed_on_behalf_of_name` then we should the person
who signed the MOU as being the `agreement_signed_on_behalf_of_name`.
This was wrongly showing the `agreement_signed_by_id` as the person who
signed the agreement.
This adds a link to the user profile of the person who requested to go
live for "Request to go live" Zendesk tickets. Viewing a user's profile
page helps us to check for duplicate organisations and services from
that user.
We want organisation team members to be able to see the MOU details for
their organisation. This change creates a new page called billing, which
contains these details. It's only visible to platform admin users now -
the plan is to add more information to this page, then to make it visible
to all organisation users.
The page showing the MOU covers the case of when agreement_signed is
True, when an agreement_signed is False, and when agreement_signed is
None. The case when an agreement_signed is None is very rare - it
signifies that the agreement is not signed but that we have some
service-specific agreements in place. We only have a few organisations
in this state, so it's unlikely that the content for this scenario will
be seen.
When an organisation has signed the agreement we may know the full
details (signing date, version signed, the person who signed it or who it
was signed on behalf of), or we may only have the name of the person who
signed the agreement. We show the more detailed content if possible, and
a less detailed version of the content if not.
There's a new route for downloading the agreement which is almost
identical to the existing `.service_download_agreement` route (plus the
test is almost the same), except that it takes an organisation ID
instead of a service ID.
This has several advantages:
- It gives us more room to explain the error and actions. This will
be useful for upcoming work we want to do, which will add yet more
validations for CSV uploads.
- We already use a flash to show certain kinds of errors on these
pages (just above). This is more consistent.
- It's potentially more accessible. Previously the error and the
button text used to be read out as a single sentence. Now the page
reloads and reads the flash error alone.
In theory we should show an error in both places, but this can be
confusing on pages where there's only a single form control, and
especially if the error is long.
