[ADVAPP-269]: Correct SLA response trigger dependency

[mxm1070]

Ticket(s) or GitHub Issue

• https://canyongbs.atlassian.net/browse/ADVAPP-269

Technical Description

Added new No Response status to handle initial SLA compliance state confusion.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an x in all the boxes that apply:

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Any deployment steps required?

A deployment step could be a command that needs to be executed or an ENV key that needs to be added, for example.

• No

---

Before contributing and submitting this PR, make sure you have:

• Read the contributing guidelines.
• Title the PR with the ticket/issue number and a short description of the changes made. Or if no ticket/issue exists, title the PR with a short description of the changes made
• Linked a relevant ticket or issue or describe the issue/feature which this PR resolves/implements.
• Resolved all conflicts, if any.
• Rebased your branch PR on top of the latest upstream main branch.

[Orrison]

Per discussion in slack. Let's not do the new compliance status and just return the number at this time.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Kudos, no new issues were introduced!

0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud