Remove dead Twilio tests and docs mentions

This commit is contained in:
2026-03-13 16:46:21 +03:00
parent 0c992404ea
commit 15ed5036d1
4 changed files with 5 additions and 59 deletions
@@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
"""Tests for Twilio OTP provider implementation."""
import pytest
from unittest.mock import MagicMock, patch
@pytest.mark.django_db
@patch("apps.accounts.services.otp.TwilioOtpProvider._get_client")
def test_twilio_send_sms_calls_client(mock_get_client):
from apps.accounts.services.otp import TwilioOtpProvider
mock_client = MagicMock()
mock_get_client.return_value = mock_client
with patch.dict("os.environ", {
"TWILIO_ACCOUNT_SID": "AC123",
"TWILIO_AUTH_TOKEN": "token",
"TWILIO_FROM_NUMBER": "+966500000000",
}):
provider = TwilioOtpProvider()
provider.send_sms("+966512345678", "Your code is 123456")
mock_client.messages.create.assert_called_once_with(
body="Your code is 123456",
from_="+966500000000",
to="+966512345678",
)
@pytest.mark.django_db
@patch("apps.accounts.services.otp.TwilioOtpProvider._get_client")
def test_twilio_send_whatsapp_calls_client(mock_get_client):
from apps.accounts.services.otp import TwilioOtpProvider
mock_client = MagicMock()
mock_get_client.return_value = mock_client
with patch.dict("os.environ", {
"TWILIO_ACCOUNT_SID": "AC123",
"TWILIO_AUTH_TOKEN": "token",
"TWILIO_FROM_NUMBER": "+966500000000",
"TWILIO_WHATSAPP_FROM": "14155238886",
}):
provider = TwilioOtpProvider()
provider.send_whatsapp("+966512345678", "Your code is 123456")
mock_client.messages.create.assert_called_once_with(
body="Your code is 123456",
from_="whatsapp:14155238886",
to="whatsapp:+966512345678",
)
+2 -4
View File
@@ -6,11 +6,11 @@ Accepted
## Context ## Context
The platform requires phone-first authentication with OTP delivery for KSA. The codebase includes multiple provider adapters (`console`, `twilio`, `unifonic`, `authentica`) but only Authentica is implemented for provider-managed OTP delivery (send/verify) and direct SMS messaging. Twilio and Unifonic adapters are partial or unimplemented; a console provider exists for local development. The platform requires phone-first authentication with OTP delivery for KSA. The codebase includes provider adapters (`console`, `authentica`) and Authentica is implemented for provider-managed OTP delivery (send/verify) and direct SMS messaging. A console provider exists for local development.
## Decision ## Decision
Use Authentica as the primary OTP provider for the MVP, with `OTP_PROVIDER=authentica` in production environments. Keep `console` for local development and tests, and retain Twilio/Unifonic adapters as scaffolds for future expansion. Use Authentica as the primary OTP provider for the MVP, with `OTP_PROVIDER=authentica` in production environments. Keep `console` for local development and tests.
## Consequences ## Consequences
@@ -20,8 +20,6 @@ Use Authentica as the primary OTP provider for the MVP, with `OTP_PROVIDER=authe
## Alternatives Considered ## Alternatives Considered
- Twilio as primary provider: not selected due to KSA-focused delivery needs and current adapter gaps.
- Unifonic as primary provider: deferred until the adapter is fully implemented and validated.
## Related ## Related
+2 -3
View File
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ The roadmap assumes a KSA-focused first launch (phone auth and Riyadh timezone d
### Backend Risks ### Backend Risks
- **Incomplete provider implementations for production-critical flows** - **Incomplete provider implementations for production-critical flows**
- Twilio/Unifonic providers in `[backend/apps/accounts/services/otp.py](backend/apps/accounts/services/otp.py)` are stubs with `NotImplementedError` for send methods, yet they are the backbone for both OTP and booking notifications. - Authentica is the only OTP/notification provider; ensure it is fully configured and exercised in production-like environments.
- `MoyasarGateway` lacks `capture_payment` and `refund_payment` implementations, limiting payment lifecycle coverage. - `MoyasarGateway` lacks `capture_payment` and `refund_payment` implementations, limiting payment lifecycle coverage.
- **Risk**: Code reads “production ready” at the API level, but the underlying integrations are not, which could cause outages if deployed naively. - **Risk**: Code reads “production ready” at the API level, but the underlying integrations are not, which could cause outages if deployed naively.
- **Tight coupling between OTP and notifications** - **Tight coupling between OTP and notifications**
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ This roadmap assumes “MVP” is equivalent to **Phase 1: Core MVP Reliability*
### Phase 0 Architecture & Production Readiness Hardening ### Phase 0 Architecture & Production Readiness Hardening
- **Finalize critical provider implementations** - **Finalize critical provider implementations**
- Implement at least one real SMS/WhatsApp provider (Twilio or Unifonic) end-to-end, behind the existing provider abstraction in `[backend/apps/accounts/services/otp.py](backend/apps/accounts/services/otp.py)`, and wire it into `[backend/apps/notifications/services.py](backend/apps/notifications/services.py)`. - Ensure Authentica OTP/SMS is fully configured and validated end-to-end behind the provider abstraction in `[backend/apps/accounts/services/otp.py](backend/apps/accounts/services/otp.py)`, and wired into `[backend/apps/notifications/services.py](backend/apps/notifications/services.py)`.
- Implement or deliberately fence off `capture_payment` and `refund_payment` in `[backend/apps/payments/services/gateway.py](backend/apps/payments/services/gateway.py)` so that the MVP either fully supports or explicitly does not support partial captures/refunds. - Implement or deliberately fence off `capture_payment` and `refund_payment` in `[backend/apps/payments/services/gateway.py](backend/apps/payments/services/gateway.py)` so that the MVP either fully supports or explicitly does not support partial captures/refunds.
- **Clarify and document boundaries** - **Clarify and document boundaries**
- Add a short architecture section in `README`/docs describing how `accounts`, `salons`, `bookings`, `payments`, and `notifications` interact, and what each service is responsible for. - Add a short architecture section in `README`/docs describing how `accounts`, `salons`, `bookings`, `payments`, and `notifications` interact, and what each service is responsible for.
@@ -220,4 +220,3 @@ This diagram clarifies current coupling and highlights where future refactors (e
- It identifies the highest-risk design/architecture issues that could impede MVP reliability or future evolution. - It identifies the highest-risk design/architecture issues that could impede MVP reliability or future evolution.
- It provides a phased, concrete sequence of work packages that can be implemented via ExecPlans (e.g., booking notifications, Moyasar payments, phone auth UX). - It provides a phased, concrete sequence of work packages that can be implemented via ExecPlans (e.g., booking notifications, Moyasar payments, phone auth UX).
- Each major feature area (auth, bookings, payments, notifications, localization, tests) should have or adopt an ExecPlan under `docs/execplans/` in line with `PLANS.md` before implementation begins. - Each major feature area (auth, bookings, payments, notifications, localization, tests) should have or adopt an ExecPlan under `docs/execplans/` in line with `PLANS.md` before implementation begins.
+1 -1
View File
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ This file tracks known gaps and risks to address in future iterations.
## Security And Auth ## Security And Auth
- Phone normalization is KSA-focused and minimal; broaden for multi-country use. - Phone normalization is KSA-focused and minimal; broaden for multi-country use.
- OTP protections are basic; add device fingerprinting and IP throttling if needed. - OTP protections are basic; add device fingerprinting and IP throttling if needed.
- Authentica OTP provider is implemented (SMS + WhatsApp via Authentica OTP); Unifonic remains a scaffold. - Authentica OTP provider is implemented (SMS + WhatsApp via Authentica OTP).
- Social login is a placeholder. - Social login is a placeholder.
- `USERNAME_FIELD` is now `"phone_number"`; `REQUIRED_FIELDS = []`; `create_superuser` accepts `phone_number`. Admin and `createsuperuser` work correctly for phone-only users. - `USERNAME_FIELD` is now `"phone_number"`; `REQUIRED_FIELDS = []`; `create_superuser` accepts `phone_number`. Admin and `createsuperuser` work correctly for phone-only users.