upcoming: [M3-7462] - User Permissions: Configure Billing Account Access

[jaalah-akamai]

Description 📝

Depending on the type of user managing the account, we want to restrict account access to billing.

• Regular/Parent Account Users: No change, they can configure None | Read Only | Read Write.
• Child Account Users: Can configure None | Read Only, Read Write is disabled.
• Proxy Users: Read Write is enabled and immutable, None | Read Only are disabled.

Changes 🔄

• currentUser and username created ambiguity as to what user we're actually dealing with for permissions, so to provide clarity:
  • currentUser is now accountUsername
  • username is now currentUsername
• Removed checkAndEnableChildAccountAccess and it's accompanying state properties since we can infer all this based on user_type.
  • Removed from state: childAccountAccessEnabled and isAccountAccessRestricted
• Added userType to state
• Updated E2E tests to account for Proxy user Billing Access perms

Preview 📷

Include a screenshot or screen recording of the change

User Type	Screenshot
Normal / Parent
Child
Proxy

How to test 🧪

Prerequisites

(How to setup test environment)

• Enable Parent / Child Account feature flag
• Turn on Mock Service Worker (MSW)
• Ensure that { user_type: 'parent' } in serverHandlers.ts

Reproduction steps

(How to reproduce the issue, if applicable)

• Go to http://localhost:3000/account/users
• Go through all 4 user types: ChildUser, ParentUser, ParentCompany (Proxy), NonAdminUser (Normal Users)

Verification steps

(How to verify changes)

• Ensure as a Parent/NonAdminUser you can enable any billing account access perms
• Ensure as a Child user that Read Write is disabled, but other two perms are selectable.
• Ensure as a Proxy user that Read Write is enabled, but other two perms are disabled.

As an Author I have considered 🤔

Check all that apply

• 👀 Doing a self review
• ❔ Our contribution guidelines
• 🤏 Splitting feature into small PRs
• ➕ Adding a changeset
• 🧪 Providing/Improving test coverage
• 🔐 Removing all sensitive information from the code and PR description
• 🚩 Using a feature flag to protect the release
• 👣 Providing comprehensive reproduction steps
• 📑 Providing or updating our documentation
• 🕛 Scheduling a pair reviewing session
• 📱 Providing mobile support
• ♿ Providing accessibility support

[mjac0bs]

✅ Saw the described permissions enabled/disabled for the user types.

I think that renaming helps clear things up a lot.

Thanks for the changes; don't forget to remove only from the new integration test. I ran the full spec locally and all passed:

[jdamore-linode]

Nice work @jaalah-akamai! Approved pending re-enabling the other user-permissions.spec tests and addressing Mariah's other feedback

[github-actions]

Coverage Report: ✅
Base Coverage: 79.83%
Current Coverage: 79.85%