Refactor: rename EligibilityVerifier to EnrollmentFlow
#2293
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
github-actions
bot
added
migrations
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
from
d56d688 to
aebbad1
Compare
Coverage report
Click to see where and how coverage changed
This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
2 times, most recently
from
409965e to
bdb159d
Compare
|
Preview url: https://benefits-2293--cal-itp-previews.netlify.app |
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0add0e7 to
c12efa1
Compare
4 tasks
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
from
56548bd to
fe50fad
Compare
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
from
fe50fad to
fbaddb9
Compare
lalver1
force-pushed
the
refactor/move-IdG-config
branch
from
75a9037 to
55c3041
Compare
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1513ca1 to
779aaa6
Compare
lalver1
force-pushed
the
refactor/move-IdG-config
branch
from
55c3041 to
e3b44a1
Compare
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
4 times, most recently
from
5d54798 to
cf85c7d
Compare
lalver1
force-pushed
the
refactor/move-IdG-config
branch
3 times, most recently
from
99485ff to
c5130db
Compare
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
from
cf85c7d to
16d56f0
Compare
lalver1
force-pushed
the
refactor/move-IdG-config
branch
from
c5130db to
27f8ad8
Compare
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a6b73f9 to
91d68c3
Compare
lalver1
force-pushed
the
refactor/move-IdG-config
branch
from
27f8ad8 to
163054e
Compare
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
from
91d68c3 to
4cafc52
Compare
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
from
4cafc52 to
95c7943
Compare
thekaveman
force-pushed
the
refactor/eligibilityverifier-enrollmentflow
branch
from
95c7943 to
bbf7ff8
Compare
lalver1
reviewed
Aug 12, 2024
| verifier = session.verifier(request) | ||
| verifier_name = verifier.name if verifier else None | ||
| flow = session.flow(request) | ||
| verifier_name = flow.name if flow else None |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would we want to use flow_name instead of verifier_name? Or maybe we decided to use this name since the analytics will still send eligibility_verifier/verifier_name key/values in update_event_properties and update_user_properties. It doesn't affect any functionality but I was wondering about this line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think it needs to stay verifier_name so that existing analytics charts still work and then #2248 will take care of updating it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, purposefully ignored the analytics code in this PR, to wait for #2248
lalver1
reviewed
Aug 12, 2024
| @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ class OAuthEvent(core.Event): | |||
|
|
|||
| def __init__(self, request, event_type): | |||
| super().__init__(request, event_type) | |||
| verifier = session.verifier(request) | |||
| verifier = session.flow(request) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar question, would we want to name this, flow, instead of verifier? If we do, we'd need to update the lines below to also use flow instead of verifier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Though it's not explicitly listed, I think this update would also be a part of #2248
lalver1
approved these changes
Aug 12, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me!
- For all
EligiblityVerifiers, confirm that an instance ofEnrollmentFlownow exists in the database with the same data - Flows using claims and API verification should still work (tested both and they still work)
-
Can X eligibility verifierpermissions are removed -
Can X enrollment flowpermissions are added -
Cal-ITPgroup hasCan [view|change] enrollment flowpermissions
angela-tran
approved these changes
Aug 12, 2024
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.
Closes #2282
Testing locally
mainbranchlocal_fixtures.json(or whatever fixture you are using) hasEligiblityVerifiersbin/reset_db.sh(now your local DB mirrors the structure of thedevenvironment)bin/init.sh(running this PR's migration on top of existing DB structure)EligiblityVerifiers, confirm that an instance ofEnrollmentFlownow exists in the database with the same dataCan X eligibility verifierpermissions are removedCan X enrollment flowpermissions are addedCal-ITPgroup hasCan [view|edit] enrollment flowpermissions