LG-5184: error page on Acuant or LexisNexis full outage#5551
Conversation
|
|
||
| before_action :override_document_capture_step_csp | ||
| before_action :update_if_skipping_upload | ||
| # rubocop:disable Rails/LexicallyScopedActionFilter |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
had to disable this cop since :show is not explicitly defined on this controller but via magic in the FSM
| if enum && !enum.include?(converted_value) | ||
| raise "unexpected #{key}: #{value}, expected one of #{enum}" | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
codeclimate is warning this raise is not covered, can we add some tests in identity_config_spec that exercise this new enum logic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Erm... I don't see identity_config_spec.rb?! 😕
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh dang I thought we had one 😭
Co-authored-by: Zach Margolis <zachmargolis@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zach Margolis <zachmargolis@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zach Margolis <zachmargolis@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Duthie <andrew.duthie@gsa.gov>
zachmargolis
left a comment
zachmargolis
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
bump on this comment: https://github.com/18F/identity-idp/pull/5551/files#r739464602
But otherwise LGTM I think
Co-authored-by: Andrew Duthie <andrew.duthie@gsa.gov>
solipet
force-pushed
the
dprice-lg-5184-full-outage-page
branch
from
4f8891a to
d1c1cb6
Compare
Co-authored-by: Zach Margolis <zachmargolis@users.noreply.github.com>
| return unless ial2_requested? | ||
|
|
||
| if VendorStatus.new.any_ial2_vendor_outage? | ||
| session[:vendor_outage_redirect] = CREATE_ACCOUNT |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For future reference, how should a developer plan to give a name to this constant? Is it the flow that the user was trying to do? I'm wondering if maybe it could be something we either automate (e.g. via referrer), or require less thought on the part of the developer (e.g. using the class name self.class.name), or omit altogether.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, I didn't love this - originally the the messaging was slightly different if the user came from creating an account, but then that messaging became the default. I think I'll merge it as is, but we can revisit as we work through expanded vendor outage handling.
solipet
force-pushed
the
dprice-lg-5184-full-outage-page
branch
from
d1e63f0 to
bb76f75
Compare
3 participants
Why: As a user, I expect that if I'm unable to complete identity verification within Login.gov due to an outage of one or more vendors, I am prevented from starting the flow and shown a message which explains the situation.
If the idp is configured to explicitly acknowledge a full outage of the Acuant, LexisNexis Instant Verify, or LexisNexis TrueID services, the user is blocked from proceeding with Identity Proofing. The three cases for this are when a user comes from an SP requiring IAL2 and: