AP-5297: Fix proceeding search requests for SCA

[colinbruce]

What

Link to story

When submitting the current proceedings to LFA it expects an array of proceeding codes, e.g. ["PB003", "PB019"]

The previous (join) code in Apply was merging them and sending ["PB003, PB019"]

This caused the proceeding search code to fail and would not match the individual codes, i.e. it could not find a proceeding with the code "PB003, PB019" and would return non-SCA data

Checklist

Before you ask people to review this PR:

• Tests and rubocop should be passing: bundle exec rake
• Github should not be reporting conflicts; you should have recently run git rebase main.
• The standards in the Git Workflow document on Confluence should be followed
• There should be no unnecessary whitespace changes. These make diffs harder to read and conflicts more likely.
• The PR description should say what you changed and why, with a link to the JIRA story.
• You should have looked at the diff against main and ensured that nothing unexpected is included in your changes.
• You should have checked that the commit messages say why the change was made.

[sentry-io]

🔍 Existing Issues For Review

Your pull request is modifying functions with the following pre-existing issues:

📄 File: app/services/legal_framework/proceeding_types/all.rb

Function	Unhandled Issue
call	JSON::ParserError: unexpected token at ' Pr... Event Count: 1

---

_{Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎}

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[kmahern]

LGTM