All of the mock / UI assertions in these tests are covered by the
tests above them - these tests were mostly targetting which options
were being shown, which we can check at a lower level.
This is much simpler than trying to test the function via the page,
although there are still two scenarios to test there:
- The page with radio buttons (using NHS as an example).
- The page with a text form (using "other" as an example).
In future work we could split this test in two to make it clearer
what it's trying to test. For now, this keeps the diff simple.
This was a lot of code to be in a form and it's going to get even
more complicated with email branding pools. Moving it out means we
can also simplify the tests that target this code.
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.
This is consistent with all other methods: we clear the cache after
the actual change, not before it.
Since the new version of -utils, we're now catching redis exceptions
on delete, so this change has little effect on behaviour.
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
There are no changes to appearance of the 'Preview this alert' button or
what it does, but this stops a CSRF token appearing in the query
string when you click the button. We don't need a CSRF token - it's
a simple GET request which doesn't change any data. Before, we had a form
with `method="get"` but because we were using a `page_footer` a CSRF
token was being added.
We can replace both the `<form>` element and `page_footer` with a
`govukButton`. This means that we make a GET request with no CSRF token
without changing the appearance of the button.
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
We want to be able to set the free allowance for a service to 0, but the
form was not allowing this - it gave an error message of `Cannot be
empty`. This can be fixed by changing the WTForms validator from
`DataRequired` (which coerces 0 to falsey) to the `InputRequired`
validator.
