The previous, manual calculation could be incorrect depending on
which SMS rates the free allowance was attributed to.
The new field also supersedes the old "letter_total" bolt-on so we
can get cost information consistently for both types.
This will make the following changes clearer.
In the next commits we'll go into more detail about "billing_units"
and how it differs for SMS vs. emails and letters.
At the moment, we put the sms rate on the usage page for each
months billing data by taking the single sms rate for the year.
The assumption that there will be a single sms rate for the year is
no longer going to be true. Therefore, instead we take the sms
rate from the monthly data itself which tells us the rate for
a months worth of sent SMS.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Sometimes users ask us to delete their mobile numbers for them.
If those users are on email auth, they should be able to
delete their number themselves.
This will save them writing a support ticket and save us
going into the database.
The pages you were redirected to if you selected either GOV.UK branding
or NHS branding used to give information about the branding and have a
button that submitted a Zendesk ticket. Now, we show a preview of the
new branding and the button applies it.
The `.email_branding_govuk` and `.email_branding_govuk_and_org` routes
shared a template since the content was the same - the only difference
was in the action of the button. However, since the pages will no longer
be so similar (e.g. the govuk page will show a preview) this splits them
up to use separate templates.
It may be the case that when the branding work is complete these pages
are fairly similar and we decided that one template between the two
endpoints is the best option again.
Having to submit the form for each choice separately slowed us down
during an incident where Redis was unavailable and came back with
stale data, which we had to clear manually.
Note: we don't want to use the "flush" feature in case there are other
keys in Redis, which may not be safe to remove.
This will make it easier to add another test / feature to clear all
the cache keys. It's debatable which of "sum" and "max" is useful:
- "max" is a better (although still not accurate) indicator of the
number of "things" affected e.g. templates, services, etc.
- "sum" makes sense in places where "max" doesn't e.g. when we clear
the "organisations" group, which doesn't equate to individual orgs.
Using "sum() ... across" seems like a reasonable compromise and makes
it clear that we're iterating over different kinds of keys.
While the pluralisation is nice, I don't think it's worth the effort
to make it work for both "object(s)" and "format(s)".
