[Issue #1494] Modify agency filter to be an exact match #1530
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
chouinar
requested review from
acouch,
aplybeah and
SammySteiner
as code owners
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Fixes #1494
Time to review: 2 mins
Changes proposed
Adjust the logic for filtering by agency to be an exact match instead of the prior "starts with" logic.
Context for reviewers
This adjustments comes out of a recent discussion with our front-end folks. Turns out they intend to pass us every agency for sub-agencies (eg.
HHS-123,HHS-456, etc). I had implemented sub-agency logic assuming we'd want prefixes, which is clunky. This makes the logic more intuitive by just being a simple match.Note that previously the agencies were also case-insensitive which is no longer here, but that also isn't really necessary.
Additional information
Updated a few tests that assumed prior logic - nothing too significant here