* Updated header and footer
* Moved files around and updated gulpfile to correct the build process when it goes to production
* Updated fonts
* Adjusted grid templating
* Adding images to assets
* Updated account pages, dashboard, and pages in message sending flow
* Updated the styling for the landing pages in the account section once logged in
* Updated header and footer
* Updated fonts
* Moved files around and updated gulpfile to correct the build process when it goes to production
* Adjusted grid templating
* Added images to assets
* Update app/templates/components/uk_components/footer/template.njk
Co-authored-by: Steven Reilly <stvnrlly@users.noreply.github.com>
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 made it easier to debug a problem with the functional tests
due to the fixtures not working correctly [^1]. It's a platform
admin only convenience over knowing the page URL.
We may want to expose the top-level "/api-integration" page but
that will require more work to show which broadcasts were sent with
which key - currently it's oriented around "messages". For now I
think it's useful to see what keys a service has.
[^1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-functional-tests/pull/411#pullrequestreview-920069799
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
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.
The endpoint to change the email branding to "GOV.UK" branding and
"GOV.UK and organisation" branding was the same but with a query string
used to determine which of the two options had been selected. This makes
them two separate endpoints, which makes the code a bit simpler and
hopefully means there is less chance of things not working as expected.
We were showing the form to request email branding with a button which
submits your choice immediately. Now, we only submit the form
immediately if "Something else" is the only branding option available to
you. If you select any other radio button (or select "Something else"
when it's not the only option) we take you to another page which either
contains more information or a textbox to fill in the details for the
branding you want.
There is currently some duplication between the new pages and their
tests, but these will be changed in future versions of the work so will
start to differ more.
The endpoint used to handle both email and letter branding, but this
replaces `.branding_request` with `.email_branding_request` and
`.letter_branding_request` instead. This is in preparation for changing
how email branding works.
The `from_template` arg was only possible for letter branding, so I've
removed that from the `.email_branding_request` endpoint.
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 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.
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’ feature
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
unatteneded laptop, for example.
I also wonder whether we might get people to give better service names
if we make the process of renaming the service less intimidating.
So this commit removes the need to re-enter your password when renaming
a service.
Note that re-naming an organisation still has the same check, but I
haven’t removed that too for the sake of keeping scope of the PR small.
This is so org level users can use this data easier for things
like determining spending per service.
We do not include sms fragments sent column and remove other sms columns
consistency.
Do not add sms fragments sent column for now until we agree on an
unambiguous name for it. The data in this column is sms billing units
multiplied by international sms weighing. My favourite for a clear
name would be 'text message credits used', but we need a naming
strategy for this.
