Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GYR1-622 PAGE 3 Make sure all editable 13614-C fields populate into PDF correctly #5450

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 28, 2025

Conversation

spompea-cfa
Copy link
Contributor

@spompea-cfa spompea-cfa commented Jan 26, 2025

Link to Jira issue

Is PM acceptance required?

  • Yes - don't merge until JIRA issue is accepted!

Reminder: merge main into this branch and get green tests before merging to main

What was done?

  • Did some 'tidying' of the mappings for page 3, LHS.
  • Added pdf mappings and spec tests for page 3, RHS (the gray fields)

How to test?

For page 3, LHS ...

  • Do some light smoke testing.

For page 3, RHS (gray questions) of the PDF ...

  • Ensure that when fields are no or blank in the Hub, that checkmarks are not
    checked off on the PDF, and that fields are empty.
  • When fields are filled in with 'Yes' or a value in the Hub, ensure these show up on the
    PDF, including the three distinct "Notes/Comments" fields on the right edge.
  • Confirm that both the Yes and No checkboxes for the 'Adjustment to income'
    question (near the middle of the page) work correctly on the PDF.

Example

image

Copy link

Heroku app: https://gyr-review-app-5450-ca8741feeeff.herokuapp.com/
View logs: heroku logs --app gyr-review-app-5450 (optionally add --tail)

@spompea-cfa spompea-cfa changed the title [wip] GYR1-622 PAGE 3 Make sure all editable 13614-C fields populate into PDF correctly GYR1-622 PAGE 3 Make sure all editable 13614-C fields populate into PDF correctly Jan 27, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@powersurge360 powersurge360 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note about directly comparing to YES vs using the enum helper methods. Still approving though, cause I know we're somewhat strapped for time and I don't want to get in the way of functional.

yes_no_checkboxes("form1[0].page2[0].Part4[0].q7ExpensesRelatedTo[0]", @intake.paid_self_employment_expenses, include_unsure: true),
yes_no_checkboxes("form1[0].page2[0].Part5[0].q3AdoptAChild[0]", fetch_gated_value(@intake, :adopted_child), include_unsure: true),
# page 3 rhs section 1 of 3
'form1[0].page3[0].stndardItemizedDeductions[0].form1098[0]' => bool_checkbox(@intake.cv_1098_cb == YES),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You may consider enum_prop_yes? because it is generated and tied to database values. If, say, the literal value of yes changes in the database, this will begin to fail. Also, if the enum key changes, this will fail here, but the method will begin throwing an exception to alert us that the key has changed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that's a really good point. i've updated the code per your suggestion!

@spompea-cfa spompea-cfa force-pushed the gyr1-622-page-3-all-mappings-incl-grays branch from 459dc36 to c08c0f8 Compare January 27, 2025 17:37
@spompea-cfa spompea-cfa merged commit e62a127 into main Jan 28, 2025
7 checks passed
@spompea-cfa spompea-cfa deleted the gyr1-622-page-3-all-mappings-incl-grays branch January 28, 2025 01:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants