LG-16378: ID_TYPE_SLUGS for stateID vs passports#12301
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: Newline before it block
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would add two contexts one for when passports are not enabled and one for when they are enabled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't there be an update to the Lexis Nexis response. I feel like it should have a similar setup with id_type_supported? So that even if Lexis Nexis comes back with a passport we reject it. This leads me to think we need to ensure that we limit the supported types depending on which flow the user is in. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would most likely need to be new ticket
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking the same
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the update to the LN response is handled here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since you are making changes in here can you fix the indentation. The ends at the end and the private keyword seem to be off.
This reverts commit 8ffd192.
…_SLUGS to classify document types
051de7f to
15cf12e
Compare
solipet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One suggestion, but LGTM
| ID_TYPE_SLUGS = { | ||
| 'Identification Card' => 'state_id_card', | ||
| 'Drivers License' => 'drivers_license', | ||
| 'Passport' => 'passport', | ||
| }.freeze |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe define ID_TYPE_SLUGS after STATE_ID_TYPE_SLUGS so we eliminate the repeated strings?
| ID_TYPE_SLUGS = { | |
| 'Identification Card' => 'state_id_card', | |
| 'Drivers License' => 'drivers_license', | |
| 'Passport' => 'passport', | |
| }.freeze | |
| ID_TYPE_SLUGS = STATE_ID_TYPE_SLUGS.merge({ | |
| 'Passport' => 'passport' | |
| }.freeze |
🎫 Ticket
LG-16378
🛠 Summary of changes