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

APPEALS-63207 Add a Task Action to move appeals from one attorney to another for decision drafting #23591

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: feature/APPEALS-60032
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kristeja
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves APPEALS-63207

Description

Please explain the changes you made here.

Acceptance Criteria

  • Code compiles correctly

Testing Plan

  1. Go to Jira Issue/Test Plan Link or list them below
  • For feature branches merging into main: Was this deployed to UAT?

Frontend

User Facing Changes

  • Screenshots of UI changes added to PR & Original Issue
BEFORE AFTER

Storybook Story

For Frontend (Presentation) Components

  • Add a Storybook file alongside the component file (e.g. create MyComponent.stories.js alongside MyComponent.jsx)
  • Give it a title that reflects the component's location within the overall Caseflow hierarchy
  • Write a separate story (within the same file) for each discrete variation of the component

Backend

Database Changes

Only for Schema Changes

  • Add typical timestamps (created_at, updated_at) for new tables
  • Update column comments; include a "PII" prefix to indicate definite or potential PII data content
  • Have your migration classes inherit from Caseflow::Migration, especially when adding indexes (use add_safe_index) (see Writing DB migrations)
  • Verify that migrate:rollback works as desired (change supported functions)
  • Perform query profiling (eyeball Rails log, check bullet and fasterer output)
  • For queries using raw sql was an explain plan run by System Team
  • Add appropriate indexes (especially for foreign keys, polymorphic columns, unique constraints, and Rails scopes)
  • Run make check-fks; add any missing foreign keys or add to config/initializers/immigrant.rb (see Record associations and Foreign Keys)
  • Add belongs_to for associations to enable the schema diagrams to be automatically updated
  • Document any non-obvious semantics or logic useful for interpreting database data at Caseflow Data Model and Dictionary

Integrations: Adding endpoints for external APIs

  • Check that Caseflow's external API code for the endpoint matches the code in the relevant integration repo
    • Request: Service name, method name, input field names
    • Response: Check expected data structure
    • Check that calls are wrapped in MetricService record block
  • Check that all configuration is coming from ENV variables
    • Listed all new ENV variables in description
    • Worked with or notified System Team that new ENV variables need to be set
  • Update Fakes
  • For feature branches: Was this tested in Caseflow UAT

Best practices

Code Documentation Updates

  • Add or update code comments at the top of the class, module, and/or component.

Tests

Test Coverage

Did you include any test coverage for your code? Check below:

  • RSpec
  • Jest
  • Other

Code Climate

Your code does not add any new code climate offenses? If so why?

  • No new code climate issues added

Monitoring, Logging, Auditing, Error, and Exception Handling Checklist

Monitoring

  • Are performance metrics (e.g., response time, throughput) being tracked?
  • Are key application components monitored (e.g., database, cache, queues)?
  • Is there a system in place for setting up alerts based on performance thresholds?

Logging

  • Are logs being produced at appropriate log levels (debug, info, warn, error, fatal)?
  • Are logs structured (e.g., using log tags) for easier querying and analysis?
  • Are sensitive data (e.g., passwords, tokens) redacted or omitted from logs?
  • Is log retention and rotation configured correctly?
  • Are logs being forwarded to a centralized logging system if needed?

Auditing

  • Are user actions being logged for audit purposes?
  • Are changes to critical data being tracked ?
  • Are logs being securely stored and protected from tampering or exposing protected data?

Error Handling

  • Are errors being caught and handled gracefully?
  • Are appropriate error messages being displayed to users?
  • Are critical errors being reported to an error tracking system (e.g., Sentry, ELK)?
  • Are unhandled exceptions being caught at the application level ?

Exception Handling

  • Are custom exceptions defined and used where appropriate?
  • Is exception handling consistent throughout the codebase?
  • Are exceptions logged with relevant context and stack trace information?
  • Are exceptions being grouped and categorized for easier analysis and resolution?

@kristeja kristeja self-assigned this Nov 21, 2024

def legacy_atty_to_atty_special_case_movement(user)
FeatureToggle.enabled?(:legacy_case_movement_atty_to_atty_for_decisiondraft, user: user) &&
appeal.tasks.open.where(type: AttorneyLegacyTask.name) && appeal.is_a?(LegacyAppeal)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There won't be an AttorneyLegacyTask for the legacy appeals. The LegacyTask class and its children are not persisted in the DB, they are dynamically generated when loading the appeal in a queue or on a case details page.

db/seeds/legacy_appeals_for_vlj_movement_testing.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -13,6 +13,11 @@ def available_actions(current_user, role)
Constants.TASK_ACTIONS.SUBMIT_OMO_REQUEST_FOR_REVIEW.to_h,
Constants.TASK_ACTIONS.ADD_ADMIN_ACTION.to_h]

if SpecialCaseMovementTeam.singleton.user_has_access?(current_user) &&
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think that we should use .can_act_on_behalf_of_judges? from the User model here instead of user_has_access?. They are functionally similar, but can_act_on_behalf_of_judges? is a more semantic/clear way of writing it to explain why the user has access to that action.

end

def show_assign_to_attorney_option?(current_user, assigned_to)
(current_user == assigned_to || current_user&.can_act_on_behalf_of_judges?) &&
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The attorney (assigned_to) shouldn't be able to see this action

return [] if role != "attorney" || current_user != assigned_to
if (role != "attorney" || current_user != assigned_to) &&
(FeatureToggle.enabled?(:legacy_case_movement_atty_to_atty_for_decisiondraft) &&
!current_user&.can_act_on_behalf_of_judges?)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The conditional is allowing the SCM user to see the attorneys actions, which we don't want since they would technically then be able to execute the "decision ready for review" action

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