We give estimates of the area for those who can’t see the map. These
estimates were needlessly precise, gave a false sense of accuracy and
were causing intermittent test failures between different environments.
This commit rounds them in the same way that we round the count of
phones.
We had some kind of idea that having this empty page would introduce the
idea of choosing areas and reinforce that you are building up a list of
areas.
But since the journey is now so simple with the button to create an
alert directly on the dashboard page, maybe people don’t need this extra
orientation.
Previously this lead to 2 support tickets because the user didn't
understand why their messages was being split into 2 fragments. We
tried modifying the message about charges, but that made it more
complicated. Adding a hint should hopefully be enough.
Our current assumption is that the bleed area has the same population
density as the broadcast area.
This is particularly naïve when:
- the bleed area overlaps the sea – no-one lives in the sea
- the broadcast area is a village and the bleed area is the surrounding
countryside
- the broadcast area is adjacent to a densely populated area like a city
We can be smarter about this now that we have a way of determining the
number of phones in an arbitrary area, based on the known areas that we
have population data about.
Calculating the population in an overlap is a slightly more intensive
calculation. So we only doing it for areas which are smaller enough that
it doesn’t slow things down too much. For larger areas we still use the
more naïve algorithm.
We signal that we're mid-way through the sign-in flow by adding a
`user_details` dict to the session.
previously, we'd only put a user's details in the session in `User.sign_in`,
just before sending any 2fa prompt and redirecting to the two factor
pages.
However, we found a bug where a user with no session (eg, using a fresh
browser) tried to log in, but they had never clicked the link to
validate their email address when registering. Their user's state was
still in "pending", so we redirected to `main.resend_email_verification`
as intended - however, they didn't have anything in the session and the
resend page expected to get the email address to resend to out of that.
To be safe, as soon as we've confirmed the user has entered their
password correctly, lets save the session data at that point. That way
any redirects will be fine.
We hide the radio field in the HTML for platform admins, as we don't
want anyone to be able to change their auth type. However, when the form
is validated, the form has a field called login_authentication that it
expects a value for. It silently fails as it complains that when the
user POSTed they didn't select a value for that radio field, but the
error message is on the radio fields that don't get displayed to the
user so they'd never know.
Fixing this is actually pretty hard.
We use this form in two places, one where we have a user to edit, one
where we are creating an invite from scratch. So sometimes we don't know
about a user's auth type. In addition, radio buttons are mandatory by
design, but now sometimes we don't just want to make it optional but
explicitly ignore the value being passed in? To solve this, remove the
field entirely from the form if the user is a platform admin. This means
that if the code in manage_users.py tries to access the
login_authentication value from the form, it'll error, but I think
that's okay to leave for now given we concede that this isn't a perfect
final solution.
The tests didn't flag this previously as they tried to set from sms_auth
(the default for `platform_admin_user`) TO email_auth or sms_auth. Also,
the diagnosis of this bug was confounded further by the fact that
`mock_get_users_by_service` sets what is returned by the API - the
service model then takes the IDs out of that response and calls
`User.get_user_by_id` for the matching ID (as in, the code only uses
get_users_by_service to ensure the user belongs to that service). This
means that we accidentally set the form editing the current user, as
when we log in we set `get_user_by_id` to return the user of our choice
This is the only way I can think to stop this shape self-intersecting
without drastically changing its area (i.e. filling the hole in the
donut).
This is the only area in our library which is a genuine donut and
presents this problem
Some of the polygons in our source data are invalid. An invalid polygon
is one that self intersects, in other words has a point which causes
the boundary of the shape to cross itself.
This doesn’t cause an exception until we try to perform certain
operations on one of these polygons, like intersecting them with another
polygon. This is why we haven’t spotted that they are invalid until now.
This commit adds checks so that as we import the polygons we make sure
they are valid.
If they are not valid, we can automatically fix them by just looking at
the exterior boundary of the shape, and ignore any holes created by
self intersection.
This continues the work from Template Preview [1], so that we have
a complete store of original PDFs to use for testing changes to it.
Previously we did store some originals, but these were only invalid
PDFs that had failed sanitisation; for valid PDFs, the "transient"
bucket only contains the sanitised versions, which the API deletes
/ moves when the notification is sent [2].
Since the notification is only created at a later stage [3], there's
no easy way to get the final name of the PDF we send to DVLA. Instead,
we use the "upload_id", which eventually becomes the notification ID
[4]. This should be enough to trace the file for specific debugging.
Note that we only want to store original PDFs if they're valid (and
virus free!), since there's no point testing changes with bad data.
[1]: https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-template-preview/pull/545
[2]: c44ec57c17/app/service/send_notification.py (L212)
[3]: 7930a53a58/app/main/views/uploads.py (L362)
[4]: 7930a53a58/app/main/views/uploads.py (L373)
We have a label saying "other live services". This label means
other live services for a user making the request, but it could
also be interpreted as other live services for an organisation.
Hence, we are changing the label to "other live services for
that user" to avoid confusion
