LG-12979: Create new idv_level value of 'in_person' on Profile

[gina-yamada]

🎫 Ticket

LG-12979 Create new idv_level value of 'in_person'

🛠 Summary of changes

• Create new value of in_person for idv_level on profile
• Assign in_person to idv_level on profile when IdentityConfig.store.in_person_proofing_enforce_tmx is true
• Update specs

📜 Testing Plan

Testing locally...

• Step 1 Set in_person_proofing_enforce_tmx to false in config.application.yml
• Step 2 Run idp locally, create an account, attempt to proof but fail remote (else pick IPP if opt-in IPP is enabled) to ultimately create an enrollment in the in person proofing flow
• Step 3 In another terminal, open the rails console rails c
• Step 4 Save the enrollment you just created e = InPersonEnrollment.last. (Note the timestamp)
• Step 5 Inspect the user's profile associated with that enrollment p = e.profile to confirm the value of idv_level is "legacy_in_person"
• Step 6 Sign out. Close rails console. Shut down server.
• Step 7 Set in_person_proofing_enforce_tmx to true in config.application.yml
• Step 8 Run idp locally, create an account, attempt to proof but fail remote (else pick IPP if opt-in IPP is enabled) to ultimately create an enrollment in the in person proofing flow
• Step 9 In another terminal, open the rails console rails c
• Step 10 Save the enrollment you just created e2 = InPersonEnrollment.last (Confirm is was the enrollment you just created by checking timestamps.)
• Step 11 Inspect the user's profile associated with that enrollment p2 = e2.profile to confirm the value of idv_level is "in_person"
• Step 12 Sign out. Close rails console. Shut down server.

[n1zyy]

Thanks for putting this together on such short notice!

I need to pull this down and experiment, but at a glance this looks great. All of the comments I left are extremely trivial suggestions about formatting in the tests; the core logic here all looks great.

[JackRyan1989]

Slight refactor to help clarify what's going on with this check (feel free to ignore)

  if in_person_verification_needed
    if IdentityConfig.store.in_person_proofing_enforce_tmx
      :in_person
    else
      :legacy_in_person
  elsif ...

[gina-yamada]

I originally had it coded that way but refactored it. I believe elsif is more performant over a nested if. I am happy to change it if nested is preferred.

[n1zyy]

I don't feel strongly about any of this, but...

I had actually initially gotten hung up on line 52, because I think the && !IdentityConfig.store.in_person_proofing_enforce_tmx bit is logically unnecessary—if it weren't false, it would have matched on line 50. But I think having it anyway makes it a tiny bit clearer what is going on (Jack's suggestion does the same), so I didn't comment.

I'm academically curious to experiment with how nested conditionals compare to inlined ones, but I wouldn't worry too much about that level of optimization here.

tl;dr, I don't have a strong opinion and will support whatever you think is most readable here.

[gina-yamada]

Okay, for readability I am going with Jack's suggestion as that is how I originally wrote it as well. See commit c08407d

[matthinz]

It's an edge case, but I think we should probably also check that FeatureManagement.proofing_device_profiling_decisioning_enabled? is returning true before marking as non-legacy.

[JackRyan1989]

@matthinz Just curious but what does that value represent?

[gina-yamada]

@matthinz - Jack and I talked through your suggestion. We agree with it! I talked Jack into implement it in a different PR as we thought we had better inspect all instances of IdentityConfig.store.in_person_proofing_enforce_tmx to evaluate if FeatureManagement.proofing_device_profiling_decisioning_enabled? should also be considered. That task seemed out of scope for this ticket and we didn't want it to get overlooked here.

Thank you for reviewing this!

New ticket
PR

[n1zyy]

Manual testing

• Created an IPP account with everything enabled: marked as in_person
• Created an IPP account with in_person_proofing_enforce_tmx disabled: marked as legacy_in_person
• Toggling the flag back on, restarting the app, logging in as the legacy_in_person user, and making an unrelated change to my profile: correctly remains legacy_in_person

[JackRyan1989]

Tested locally, works great. Looks good to me!

[JackRyan1989]

Noting here that I will add a check for FeatureManagement.proofing_device_profiling_decisioning_enabled? in a separate pull request.

[gina-yamada]

@jmhooper @matthinz I am hoping to get a review/approval from your team on this PR before merging it in. Please let me know what you think. Thanks