We can use the `optional_text_field` macro to grey out the text when
nothing is set up. And adding ‘registered’ makes the language consistent
through to the next page.
when getting a list of security keys
Also test separately that we are correctly choosing key out of list
of security keys. Previously we have done it as a part
of testing pages where where we were calling API to get a list
of keys, but then choosing one of those keys based on id.
Also remove redundant second test credential after PR review
Also remove redundant return value from mocks in update name tests
When we are unable to delete security key because it's the last
one for that user, API throws an error. Here we catch that error
and display useful message to the user.
Use security key instead of webauthn credential
in user facing message - for consistency and readability.
We use security key term in user facing stuff and webauthn
credential in the code.
This naming was introduced in 2016 without explanation [1]. I find it
confusing because:
- It's reminiscent of "_app", which is a Python convention indicating
the variable is internal, so maybe avoid using it.
- It suggests there's some other "app" fixture I should be using (there
isn't, though).
The Python style guide describes using an underscore suffix to avoid
clashes with inbuilt names [1], which is sort of applicable if we need
to import the "app" module [2]. However, we can also avoid clashes by
choosing a different name, without the strange underscore.
[1]: 3b1d521c10
[2]: 78824f54fd/tests/app/main/views/test_forgot_password.py (L5)
This links up the `get_webauthn_credentials_for_user` and
`create_webauthn_credential_for_user` methods of the user api client to
notifications-api.
To send data to the API we need strings to be unicode, so we call
decode('utf-8') on base64 objects.
Co-authored-by: Leo Hemsted <leo.hemsted@digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk>
This adds a new platform admin settings row, leading a page which
shows any existing keys and allows a new one to be registered. Until
the APIs for this are implemented, the user API client just returns
some stubbed data for manual testing.
This also includes a basic JavaScript module to do the main work of
registering a new authenticator, to be implemented in the next commits.
Some more minor notes:
- Setting the headings in the mapping_table is necessary to get the
horizontal rule along the top (to match the design).
- Setting caption to False in the mapping_table is necessary to stop
an extra margin appearing at the top.
The `post` method of the `client_request` fixture has an argument called
`_data`. There were a few places where we had used an argument of `data`
instead by mistake.
We were using user fixtures in a lot of parameterized tests, but this is
no longer allowed in Pytest 5. To avoid having to split up the parametrized
tests (which would make the test files a lot longer and slightly more
difficult to read) this commit creates functions which return various types
of user json so that we can use these as the test parameters instead.
so that platform admins (us) can view pages as regular users do easily.
Simply adds a flag in the session cookie that overrides the actual
platform admin flag on the user model if set. This way it's safe, since
this only downgrades existing functionality, so if someone managed to
alter it they could only get less permissions, not more.
You can change this value from the user profile page if either:
* you're a platform admin
* the flag is set (to any value) on the cookie.
This slightly weird check means that we don't check the underlying
`user._platform_admin` flag anywhere in the code, even when toggling
the suppression.
The data flow of other bits of our application looks like this:
```
API (returns JSON)
⬇
API client (returns a built in type, usually `dict`)
⬇
Model (returns an instance, eg of type `Service`)
⬇
View (returns HTML)
```
The user API client was architected weirdly, in that it returned a model
directly, like this:
```
API (returns JSON)
⬇
API client (returns a model, of type `User`, `InvitedUser`, etc)
⬇
View (returns HTML)
```
This mixing of different layers of the application is bad because it
makes it hard to write model code that doesn’t have circular
dependencies. As our application gets more complicated we will be
relying more on models to manage this complexity, so we should make it
easy, not hard to write them.
It also means that most of our mocking was of the User model, not just
the underlying JSON. So it would have been easy to introduce subtle bugs
to the user model, because it wasn’t being comprehensively tested. A lot
of the changed lines of code in this commit mean changing the tests to
mock only the JSON, which means that the model layer gets implicitly
tested.
For those reasons this commit changes the user API client to return
JSON, not an instance of `User` or other models.
At the moment we have to update a YAML file and deploy the change to get
a new domain whitelisted.
We already have a thing for adding new domains – the organisation stuff.
This commit extends the validation to look in the `domains` table on the
API if it can’t find anything in the YAML whitelist.
This has the advantage of:
- not having to deploy code to whitelist a new domain
- forcing us to create new organisations as they come along, so that
users’ services automatically get allocated to the organisation once
their domain is whitelisted
It:
- saves repetetive boilerplate code
- does some extra checks (eg checking for a `200` response)
- makes the codebase less confusing to consistently do the same thing in
the same way
One of the changes this pulls in is encoding of
periods in the token used for new password
requests.
In real-life the resulting URL is build by
concatenating the base url with the token so it
isn't processed further.
The test for new password requests builds the URL
with url_for. This encodes the result returned so
the periods are encoded twice.
we were seeing isort produce different outputs locally and in docker -
this was due to it having different opinions about whether the tests
module (ie all our unit tests) is a first party (local) or third party
(pip installed) import. It's a first party import, so by defining this
in the setup.cfg isort settings, we can force it to be consistent
between environments.
Note: I don't know why it was different in the first place though
Done using isort[1], with the following command:
```
isort -rc ./app ./tests
```
Adds linting to the `run_tests.sh` script to stop badly-sorted imports
getting re-introduced.
Chosen style is ‘Vertical Hanging Indent’ with trailing commas, because
I think it gives the cleanest diffs, eg:
```
from third_party import (
lib1,
lib2,
lib3,
lib4,
)
```
1. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/isort
Right now Notify restricts you to registering with a UK mobile number.
This is because when we built the user registration stuff we couldn’t
send to international mobiles.
However we can send to international mobile numbers, and it’s totally
reasonable to expect employees of the UK government to be working
abroad, and have a foreign mobile phone – we’ve heard from one such
user.
So this commit:
- changes all places where users enter their own phone number to use
the validation function which allows international phone numbers
- renames the `mobile_number` validation to `uk_mobile_number` to make
it explicit, and force it to break the tests if there’s somewhere it’s
being used that I haven’t thought of
specifically, the 2FA page when you first create an account is different to the login 2FA page
and also the 2FA page when you change your phone number is different as well
We have a bunch of different styles of handling when function
definitions span multiple lines, which they almost always do with tests.
Here’s why an argument per line, single indent is best:
- cleaner diffs when you change the name of a method (one line change
instead of multiple lines)
- works better on narrow screens, eg Github’s diff view, or with two
terminals side by side on a laptop screen
- works with any editor’s indenting shortcuts, no need for an IDE
Also, trailing comma in the list of arguments is good because adding a
new argument to a method becomes a one line, not two line diff.
This PR changes the flow to change an email address.
Once the user enter their password, they are told "Check your email".
An email has been sent to them containing a link to notify which contains an encrypted token.
The encrypted token contains the user id and new email address. Once the link is clicked the user's email address is updated to the new email address.
They are redirected to the /user-profile page.
Also in this commit is an update from flask.ext.login to flask_login.
- it tried to send a verify code which no longer is applicable
- one stage of process removed and tests update properly
Flow is:
- Change email
- Confirm with password
- Done
If a user chooses a very common password then an attacker could guess it
in relatively few attempts, circumventing the lockout.
CESG recommend blacklisting the most common passwords:
> …enforcing the requirement for complex character sets in passwords is
> not recommended. Instead, concentrate efforts on technical controls,
> especially:
>
> - defending against automated guessing attacks by either using account
> lockout, throttling, or protective monitoring
> - blacklisting the most common password choices
How I made this list:
- went to the OWASP repository of security lists:
https://github.com/danielmiessler/SecLists
- downloaded `10k_most_common.txt`, `twitter-banned.txt` and
`500-worst-passwords.txt`
- filtered out any under 8 characters:
```
sed -r '/^.{,7}$/d' passwords-twitter.txt > passwords-combined.txt
sed -r '/^.{,7}$/d' passwords-500.txt >> passwords-combined.txt
sed -r '/^.{,7}$/d' passwords.txt >> passwords-combined.txt
```
- filtered out any duplicates:
```
cat passwords-combined.txt | awk '!x[$0]++' > passwords-combined-deduped.txt
```
when visited sends sms code for second step of account verification.
At that second step user enters just sms code sent to users mobile
number.
Also moved dao calls that simply proxied calls to client to calling
client directly.
There is still a place where a user will be a sent a code for
verification to their email namely if they update email address.
register. On succesful register and verfication they
will be added to service and forwarded to dashboard.
Nothing is done yet with the permissions requested in the
invite to the user.
