19693 continuation in nr and draft filing #2774
Conversation
vysakh-menon-aot
requested review from
Jxio,
seeker25,
ochiu and
rodrigo-barraza
as code owners
|
| if ([CorpTypes.AMALGAMATION_APPLICATION, | ||
| CorpTypes.INCORPORATION_APPLICATION, | ||
| CorpTypes.CONTINUATION_IN, | ||
| CorpTypes.REGISTRATION].includes(payload.business.corpType.code)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might have orphan draft registration filing in filings table which was unaffiliated from the account.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And orphan draft amalgamation applications and firm registrations?
Please call this out to Riyaz for extra testing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since amalgamation is not enabled in prod it wont be there
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, so there is no bug in Prod, but we might see it in Dev or Test (and later Prod when we enable it there).
I agree with your code change; I just want to understand its impact -- what does this fix?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there is a bug in prod for firm registration. I don't think there will be an impact though (its going to stay there for ever). Its hard to find the orphan drafts since the link between draft and account in different db (draft filing in lear and affiliation in auth)
|
feature flags is in a different ticket #15310. not ready to push to prod |
| this.dialogTitle = this.$t('removeContinuationInConfirmTitle').toString() | ||
| this.dialogText = this.$t('removeContinuationInConfirmText').toString() | ||
| this.primaryBtnText = 'Delete Continuation In' | ||
| this.secondaryBtnText = 'Keep Continuation In' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be "Delete Continuation In Application", etc?
| [CorpTypes.AMALGAMATION_APPLICATION, | ||
| CorpTypes.INCORPORATION_APPLICATION, | ||
| CorpTypes.CONTINUATION_IN, | ||
| CorpTypes.REGISTRATION].includes(business.corpType.code)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So the old code was missing Amalgamation Application? What was the impact of that? Does this fix a known bug?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(This may need a little extra testing from Riyaz. Please call it out in your ticket attention: Riyaz.)
| "removeContinuationInSuccessTitle": "Continuation In Deleted", | ||
| "removeContinuationInSuccessText": "You have successfully deleted a continuation in", | ||
| "removeContinuationInConfirmTitle": "Delete Continuation In?", | ||
| "removeContinuationInConfirmText": "Deleting this continuation in will remove the application from your Business Registry list. If this continuation in was associated with a Name Request, the Name Request can still be used to start a continuation in.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, should these be "continuation in application"?
| @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ export enum AffiliationTypes { | |||
| NAME_REQUEST = 'Name Request', | |||
| AMALGAMATION_APPLICATION = 'Amalgamation Application', | |||
| INCORPORATION_APPLICATION = 'Incorporation Application', | |||
| CONTINUATION_IN = 'Continuation In', | |||
| @@ -180,10 +181,13 @@ export enum CorpTypes { | |||
| PARTNERSHIP = 'GP', | |||
| SOLE_PROP = 'SP', | |||
|
|
|||
| // colin | |||
| BC_CONTINUE_IN = 'C', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we have this the same as our master list in the shared components library?
Issue #:
bcgov/entity#19693
Description of changes:
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of the sbc-auth license (Apache 2.0).