since we are hard-coding a generic error message on the front-end, we
have no need to do anything on the back end. This is also nice as it
standardises the two flows to behave more like each other (rather than
previously where one would `flash` an error message and the other would
return CBOR for the js to decode).
Note that the register flow returns 400 while the auth flow returns 403.
The js for both just checks `response.ok` so will handle both. The JS
completely discards any body returned if the status isn't 200 now.
turns out that we're only using errorBanner with a static message, and
it's also full of rich html content. This means that it's probably
better to put it in the html templates with other content, rather than
hidden away in js files if we can help it.
Since there are two places, had to dupe the error message but i think
that's fine as i don't anticipate this error message being used in
significantly more places.
making it a string is a bit gross and means we don't get nice syntax
highlighting on it, but as it needs to be passed in to a jinja macro
that's the way it has to go unfortunately.
the banner is a nicer user experience, and consistent with how we
display errors elsewhere in notify. For now pass through the error
message from JS, but we'll probably want to change that since the erorr
messages themselves are often a bit cryptic and unhelpful
We only need to assert on the URL for the subsequent POST back to
the server, at which point we can call the test "done()". This is
a technique we use in the following tests as well, so we don't need
to comment about it here.
This is easier than re-assigning the mock functions manually, as
we're reusing Jest's in-built behaviour. Because all the mocks
are restored, we need to move the ones we had in the beforeAll
block into the beforeEach block.
Note: "require('./support/teardown.js')" also resets all Jest
mocks, but "require" only runs once, so we can't use it in a
beforeEach block [1]. We could do a "jest.resetModules()" to fix
that, which seems worse on the whole. I think there's a broader
discussion here about whether we could / should have a global
reset of Jest mocks after each test - I quickly tried this and
it causes some existing tests to fail :-|.
[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48989643/how-to-reset-module-imported-between-tests
the next url comes from sign in via a query param, and needs to go to
the POST /webauthn/authenticate endpoint. That endpoint logs the user
in and returns the redirect to the browser, and will take the next from
the request query params to get there.
also moving the window mocks to beforeEach/afterEach ensures that
promise callbacks from previous tests aren't still associated in future
tests to ensure good test isolation.
unfortunately i couldn't get mocking location for a single js test to
work, but by changing the global config i was able to add some query
params that i can expect to be passed through. Don't love this at all
but not quite sure of a good way round this. I think we're not
practicing very good hygiene and best practices with our mocking and
it's really confounding me here.
notably i had to change `window.location = foo` to
`window.location.assign` so that i could have something to spy on with
jest. mocking sucks. Otherwise this is pretty similar to the
registerSecurityKey.test.js file.
