LG-8274: In-Person Proofing CTA A/B Testing

[sheldon-b]

🎫 Ticket

LG-8274: Try in Person IPP CTA A/B Testing

🛠 Summary of changes

• Introduce structure for Login IPP variant testing, which doubles to support future throttling work
• Implement variant A view with nationwide language with translations
• Implement variant B view with nationwide language with translations
• Implement throttling view (variant C) that hides IPP entrypoint when IPP is enabled
• Ensure existing RIDP flow is unchanged when IPP or AB testing are disabled
• Log active variant for each user session

📜 Testing Plan

1. Step through flow and visually confirm expected variant view and copy under all combinations of

• in_person_proofing_enabled true / false
• in_person_cta_variant_testing_enabled true / false
• in_person_cta_variant_testing_percents values:
  -- {}
  -- {"A":100, "B":0}
  -- {"A":0,"B":100}
  -- {"A":0,"B":0,"C":100}
  -- Document authentication error type (hard fail, or attention)
  -- Language

2. With IPP and variant testing enabled and testing percents as {"A":45,"B":45,"C":10}, step through the doc auth attention error flow with multiple user sessions and confirm that variant will change.

3. Ensure existing automated test suite passes

👀 Screenshots

Seen for all test scenarios in google drive here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxmfnSmoaKVblFd2eio9OA71ONaIRJITdw1dn6jxwEg/edit?usp=sharing

[svalexander]

just want to make sure i understand - altAction is variant-b's cta?

[jess-fortier]

Speaking first generally, we augmented this component to allow for two actions in the same paradigm as you might see an "OK" and a "Cancel". The primary user action is as before: Blue button, white text. We've added an alternative user action option that is presented as a white button with blue outline.

You are correct about the way this is used in the variant B Warning component.

[svalexander]

ahh ok so then i should think of this as a [stylistic] secondary version of the button.

[jess-fortier]

Hm I might be misunderstanding you here - "a [stylistic] secondary version of the button" makes it sound like a different (stylistic) way to present a sole intended user option, like you would be using the white-with-blue-outline style instead of the blue. While the implementation would technically allow for that (I think...), that isn't the intended use. Rather than a different way to display the same button, we wanted the Warning to display two different buttons.

[svalexander]

what's the difference btwn enabled and active? Is enabled saying "a/b testing happened" and active is saying "this user saw variant x"? If so can we change the naming to something like inPersonCtaVariantVersion? active makes me think it would be a boolean value.

[svalexander]

oh, or just inPersonCtaVariant?

[jess-fortier]

Valid question - I went back and forth on the naming of these for a long time. Let me know if you have a suggestion for how to better capture what's happening here:
inPersonCtaVariantTestingEnabled - Is AB testing turned on in the application config?
inPersonCtaVariantActive - Which variant has been activated for the current user session?

[svalexander]

i think the enabled one is clear. The active one i would change to something like inPersonCtaVariant or even just switch around variant and active to inPersonCtaActiveVariant. I know when i see an action word at the end of a variable name it suggests a boolean to me.

[tomas-nava]

approve!