Skip to content

LG-13599 Failed doc auth result offers IPP offramp#10903

Merged
theabrad merged 2 commits intomainfrom
abrad-lg-13599-doc-auth-fail-ipp
Jul 24, 2024
Merged

LG-13599 Failed doc auth result offers IPP offramp#10903
theabrad merged 2 commits intomainfrom
abrad-lg-13599-doc-auth-fail-ipp

Conversation

@theabrad
Copy link
Contributor

@theabrad theabrad commented Jul 2, 2024

🎫 Ticket

Link to the relevant ticket:
LG-13599

🛠 Summary of changes

When a user goes through doc auth and gets a failed doc auth result, they are now offered the option to go through In-Person Proofing.

📜 Testing Plan

Provide a checklist of steps to confirm the changes.

  • Go through IdV until the doc auth step.
  • Upload a yml file with a doc_auth_result: Failed (I used spec/fixtures/ial2_test_credential_doc_auth_fail_and_no_liveness.yml)
  • Confirm that it offers IPP

changelog: User-Facing Improvements, Doc Auth, Failed doc auth offers IPP offramp
@theabrad theabrad requested review from amirbey, jmax-gsa and solipet July 2, 2024 13:54
<DocumentCaptureTroubleshootingOptions
location="post_submission_warning"
showAlternativeProofingOptions={!isFailedResult}
showAlternativeProofingOptions
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like showAlternativeProofingOptions is true in all cases now. Should we get rid of the prop altogether?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah. Checking out where else it is used, we don't need it anymore. I will remove it

since we offer IPP offramp for failed doc_auth we do not need this check anymore
});

context('with showAlternativeProofingOptions', () => {
it('renders in-person call to action', () => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm confused by the mismatch between the test description and the assertion to render something. Should we have at least one test that the expected content is always rendered now?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That test is below. With in person url -> it renders in-person call to action. This test is without in-person url -> it does not render ipp cta. This test probably was mis-named before.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Gotcha, makes sense

Copy link
Contributor

@aduth aduth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can't speak to business logic, but code LGTM 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@amirbey amirbey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@theabrad theabrad merged commit 483ff66 into main Jul 24, 2024
@theabrad theabrad deleted the abrad-lg-13599-doc-auth-fail-ipp branch July 24, 2024 18:05
mitchellhenke pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2024
* Failed doc auth result offers IPP offramp

changelog: User-Facing Improvements, Doc Auth, Failed doc auth offers IPP offramp

* remove showAlternativeProofingOptions

since we offer IPP offramp for failed doc_auth we do not need this check anymore
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.

3 participants