## Description
This feature allows us to have a dedicated page to view details for a
document.
The current `/documents/[id]` page has been moved to
`/documents/[id]/edit`.
The new `/documents/[id]` page will now display general information on
the document itself.
This will allow us to provide more details relating to a document in the
future, such as version history.
## Examples
These may be outdated as deployment failed
Login via example@documenso.com
Draft document no recipients:
https://stg-7hpkvyc5i-documenso.vercel.app/documents/446
Draft document with recipients:
https://stg-7hpkvyc5i-documenso.vercel.app/documents/440
Pending document:
https://stg-7hpkvyc5i-documenso.vercel.app/documents/447
Completed document:
https://stg-7hpkvyc5i-documenso.vercel.app/documents/448
Pending teams document:
https://stg-7hpkvyc5i-documenso.vercel.app/t/hello/documents/449/
## Checklist
<!--- Please check the boxes that apply to this pull request. -->
<!--- You can add or remove items as needed. -->
- [ ] I have tested these changes locally and they work as expected.
- [ ] I have added/updated tests that prove the effectiveness of these
changes.
- [X] I have followed the project's coding style guidelines.
## Additional Notes
When a user "sends" a document (DRAFT -> PENDING), should we redirect
them to the document/id page, or keep it how it currently is and have it
redirect to `/documents` page?
Disables the generation of the blog and content pages using
generateStaticPaths to deal with a regression with routing
introduced with next-runtime-env.
improved document-dropzone ui for small vertical screens (screens less
than 800px vertically)
Although it can still become congested on really small vertical screens,
but possibility is really low.
fixes: #840
Adding a security.txt file enables security researchers to quickly and
easily see where they can submit security issues and know that they are
being taken serious. From the proposal website:
> "When security risks in web services are discovered by independent
security researchers who understand the severity of the risk, they often
lack the channels to disclose them properly. As a result, security
issues may be left unreported. security.txt defines a standard to help
organizations define the process for security researchers to disclose
security vulnerabilities securely.”
See also https://securitytxt.org
## Description
Fixed issue where you are prevented from removing fields for a recipient
that has multiple fields.
Example:
Recipient has 3 fields, you remove 1 and proceed to next step. In the
next step the field reappears as it was not deleted.
## Checklist
- [X] I have tested these changes locally and they work as expected.
- [X] I have added/updated tests that prove the effectiveness of these
changes.
- [X] I have followed the project's coding style guidelines.
## Description
Adds the ability to see the events relating to the account.
Event data includes:
- Device
- IP Address
- Time
- Action
Actions are:
- Profile update
- Account linked to SSO (Example user signs in with Google after
creating a email/password account)
- Enable 2FA
- Disable 2FA
- Reset password
- Update password
- Sign out
- Sign in
- Sign in fail
- Sign in 2FA fail
## Changes
- Added audit logs
- Updated 2FA dialogs to have consistent footers
- Update `/settings/security/page` layout
## Testing Performed
Tested events:
More tested events:
## Checklist
- [X] I have tested these changes locally and they work as expected.
- [X] I have followed the project's coding style guidelines.
## Additional Notes
- Not sure if we really want to record the sign out event or not
- Might want to design breadcrumbs for nested setting pages
Fixed the deleting signature block issue on touchscreens, for some
reason the `onClick` event isn't working on the touchscreens that's why
I've added `onTouchEnd` event to delete the signature block when the
user clicks on it.
Lucas Smith