Update some dependencies flagged by Requires.io

[seav]

Proposed changes in this pull request

This PR updates some dependencies and packages flagged by Requires.io and adds Requires.io filter directives to restrict Django to 1.10.x and gdal to 1.x.x. This PR also includes a few changes to the platform code:

• Resolve/ignore new flake8 checks such as duplicate dict keys and implicit imported symbols (only for settings files).
• Remove unnecessary call to str() because updated python-magic already returns Unicode strings for Python 3.
• Replace calls to _prepare() method in UserFactory and ResourceFactory with calls to _build() and _create(), and _after_postgeneration() respectively due to the updated factory-boy package which removed the _prepare() method.

When should this PR be merged

When convenient and preferably within Sprint 20 as a patch release.

Risks

While the Travis build passes, and some limited testing was done in the dev VM, extensive QA testing should be done (as part of Sprint 20 QA day testing) to confirm there are no side-effects.

Follow-up actions

Continue investigating/testing the remaining flagged packages.

• The updated django-leaflet (which now uses Leaflet 1.0.0) has a weird CSS bug that needs to be investigated. But this may be moot if SMAP will no longer use django-leaflet.
• The updated django-simple-history throws a database-related platform error.
• Investigate updating DRF.

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

• Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Is the PR labeled correctly? It should have the migration label if a new migration is added.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Is the risk level assessment sufficient? The risks section should contain all risks that might be introduced with the PR and which actions we need to take to mitigate these risks. Possible risks are database migrations, new libraries that need to be installed or changes to deployment scripts.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2

Functionality

• Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2

Code

• Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Is the code documented sufficiently? Large and complex classes, functions or methods must be annotated with comments following our code-style guidelines.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Has the scalability of this change been evaluated?
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Is there a maintenance plan in place?
  • Review 1
  • Review 2

Tests

• Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?
  • Review 1
  • Review 2

Security

• Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Does all branching logic have a default case?
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?
  • Review 1
  • Review 2

Documentation

• Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the Cadasta Platform Documentation.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the API docs.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2
• Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.
  • Review 1
  • Review 2

[amplifi]

Re: PR merge - PR not submitted in time for Sprint 19 deadline. Will be held for release in Sprint 20.

[oliverroick]

Looks good, needs testing on staging.