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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

EL-1745 Check Answers display #1550

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 14, 2024
Merged

EL-1745 Check Answers display #1550

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 14, 2024

Conversation

willc-work
Copy link
Contributor

Jira ticket

What changed and why

Added a check to see if we are responding to an EE gross income result
If we are we display only relevant sections on Check ANswers

Guidance to review

Checklist

Before you ask people to review this PR:

  • Tests and rubocop should be passing
  • Branch is generally up to date with main Github - definitely no conflicts
  • No unnecessary whitespace changes. These make diffs harder to read and conflicts more likely.
  • PR description says what changed and why, with a link to the JIRA story.
  • Diff has been checked for unexpected changes being included.
  • Commit messages say why the change was made.

@willc-work willc-work requested a review from a team as a code owner September 20, 2024 13:00
MazOneTwoOne
MazOneTwoOne reviewed Sep 20, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@MazOneTwoOne MazOneTwoOne left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just the one query.

Also, do we need to put in a bunch of flow tests?

app/services/check_answers/section_lister_service.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@MazOneTwoOne MazOneTwoOne added question Further information is requested and removed Ready For Review labels Sep 20, 2024
@willc-work
Copy link
Contributor Author

@MazOneTwoOne re this comment I am not keen on the idea of adding a bunch of tests to check what displays given that UATing it will confirm that for us without the ongoing overhead of running 3 or 4 tests to cover the variations needed for this bug. If the bug was more serious then tests may be required.

@willc-work willc-work added Ready For Review and removed question Further information is requested labels Sep 24, 2024
@MazOneTwoOne
Copy link
Contributor

@MazOneTwoOne re this comment I am not keen on the idea of adding a bunch of tests to check what displays given that UATing it will confirm that for us without the ongoing overhead of running 3 or 4 tests to cover the variations needed for this bug. If the bug was more serious then tests may be required.

Maybe not a bunch of tests, but at least we should update this spec spec/flows/early_result_spec.rb to cover the new behaviour (technically the existing behaviour we should have had)?

It may stop us adding in a similar regression.

@MazOneTwoOne MazOneTwoOne added Approved UAT Keep PR open to keep ephemeral UAT URL alive and removed Ready For Review labels Sep 25, 2024
@willc-work willc-work force-pushed the EL-1745-checkanswersdisplay branch 8 times, most recently from 8eed2d9 to c36fc23 Compare October 3, 2024 11:13
@willc-work
add check for EE result
4bb5230 
add expectation for the contents of EE check answers

add nocov to fix coverage issue, there are tests covering both sides of the branch
@willc-work willc-work merged commit 6523d45 into main Oct 14, 2024
13 checks passed
@willc-work willc-work deleted the EL-1745-checkanswersdisplay branch October 14, 2024 14:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@MazOneTwoOne MazOneTwoOne MazOneTwoOne approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Approved UAT Keep PR open to keep ephemeral UAT URL alive
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@willc-work @MazOneTwoOne