LG-13692 Use PendingProfileConcern to check for pending profiles during IdV#10867
LG-13692 Use PendingProfileConcern to check for pending profiles during IdV#10867
PendingProfileConcern to check for pending profiles during IdV#10867Conversation
jmhooper
force-pushed
the
jmhooper-use-pending-profile-concern-in-idv
branch
from
6dcd40e to
08a5542
Compare
jmhooper
changed the base branch from
main
to
jmhooper-remove-resend-from-the-request-letter-controller
…ring IdV The `PendingProfileConcern` uses the `PendingProfilePolicy` to check if a user has a pending profile and needs to be redirected to finish proofing. We have code in the `IdvStepConcern` that does the same, but does not factor all of the things that go into that function, such as whether the SP requested a biometric comparison and the pending profile had a biometric comparison. This commit uses the `PendingProfileConcern` in the `IdvStepConcern` to ensure the pending profile logic is consistent. [skip changelog]
jmhooper
force-pushed
the
jmhooper-use-pending-profile-concern-in-idv
branch
from
08a5542 to
561fb82
Compare
|
|
||
| def user_has_pending_profile? | ||
| pending_profile_policy.user_has_pending_profile? | ||
| pending_profile_policy.user_has_pending_profile? && !user_failed_ipp_with_fraud_review_pending? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this !user_failed_ipp_with_fraud_review_pending be part of PendingProfilePolicy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had some back and forth on this. It is a little tough to track exactly what it does. It appears that if a user failed IPP with fraud review pending then their pending_profile does not count. That implementation is, perhaps, questionable but I think that is a bigger change than this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It feels like if we know they failed IPP we should cancel the profile
|
LGTM, pending adding back the feature spec showing what this fixes |
| expect(current_path).to eq(idv_verify_by_mail_enter_code_path) | ||
|
|
||
| # Cancelling redirects to IdV flow start | ||
| click_on t('idv.gpo.address_accordion.cta_link') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is wholly irrelevant to your PR, but just looking at this translation string I would never guess it read "Clear your information and start over". I would expect a CTA to be enticing the user to start some action, not cancel and start over.
| before_action :confirm_idv_needed | ||
| before_action :confirm_letter_recently_enqueued | ||
| before_action :confirm_no_pending_gpo_profile | ||
| before_action :confirm_no_pending_in_person_enrollment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @jmhooper, for future PRs that affect in_person_enrollments, could you please tag @identity-joy-engineers for a review? It would help us track potential changes to our flow.
If you’re concerned about turnaround time, you can also post the PR in the #login-team-joy-eng channel and tag the @login-joy-engineers group. Thanks!
4 participants
The
PendingProfileConcernuses thePendingProfilePolicyto check if a user has a pending profile and needs to be redirected to finish proofing. We have code in theIdvStepConcernthat does the same, but does not factor all of the things that go into that function, such as whether the SP requested a biometric comparison and the pending profile had a biometric comparison.This commit uses the
PendingProfileConcernin theIdvStepConcernto ensure the pending profile logic is consistent.