Conversation
fde7ae2 to
3e82a9a
Compare
Why: Inherited proofing team needs a way to mock api calls to the va api for testing changelog: Internal, Inherited Proofing, Adding a mock VA API
3e82a9a to
2c1a3c3
Compare
gangelo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@holytoastr open to whether or not we should include the new object the VA is returning, but my inclination is that we should include it :(
Rather than around the VA API.
|
In my opinion, there is no reason to validate the auth_code (as being mocked-auth-code-for-testing); why do we care what the auth_code is, just accept anything and return the values. @rnagilla-gsa ... I'll defer to your opinion. |
Hi @jscodefix, That is a good question. Yes, I did think of just checking if blank?; we at least care about that since this proofer will get called if the Inherited Proofer FF is turned off, in which case the "real" codez should at least pass something; if this is not the case, it will at least eliminate that surprise. Yes, so, the only time we should ever be calling this proofer is when the Inherited Proofer FF is turned off, in which case the only auth code we should ever be passing to the proofer is 'mocked-auth-code-for-testing' because we'd be using the sinatra app instead. If the IP FF flag is turned on and we're using the sinatra app (locally or on The only solid reason I can think of removing that guard (and just checking if blank?), is if the VA decides to provide additional mock auth codes that might (for example), force an error of some kind, return different mhv_data, etc. In this case, the sinatra app would provide multiple auth codes, and we'd have to remove/refactor that guard. We can remove that guard, I just like the peace of mind knowing that the auth code can make its way from the sinatra app all the way to the proofer without surprises. |
Provides a basic mock API call for environments where we cannot access the VA API staging environment