Rename identity verification routes

[jessieay]

Why: IDV does not make sense to an end user. Verify does. cc @esgoodman

Open question: It seems like it makes sense to call some stuff IDV on our side since that is the technical term. Or maybe we move everything to be called "Verification" ?

[pkarman]

I'm +0 on renaming these routes. If the rationale is allowing the user to easily spell out the URL over the phone, then keep it as short as possible seems ideal.

If we do rename, verify is a verb and we try to use nouns in our URLs.

[jessieay]

@pkarman this is the "step" that @esgoodman and I agreed on when discussing. She described them as verbs:

sign_up (sign up)
sign_in (sign in)
manage (edit)
recover
verify (idv)

We already updated sign_up routes to use sign_up namespace consistently. This PR represents another step in that direction. These are all a part of issue 197 from identity-private. Do you think that issue should be de-prioritized?

[pkarman]

based on the work already done, looks like verbs are in the URLs. 🤷 OK.

[pkarman]

lgtm

[jessieay]

@pkarman any thoughts on

It seems like it makes sense to call some stuff IDV on our side since that is the technical term. Or maybe we move everything to be called "Verification" ?

[pkarman]

I think the pattern has been to name things in the code according to their technical meaning to developers.

[jessieay]

I am adding the blocked label to this until I discuss with Liz about what to do next

[jessieay]

Caught up with @esgoodman on this. We decided to move forward with the re-name proposed in this PR.

Reasoning:

• idv is not "plain language" whereas "verify" is
• using the verb rather than the noun is less Railsy, but easier to read and shorter. We are really using it as a namespace so it seems less important to have it be a noun that it would if it were naming controllers after verbs (similar to sign_up being a namespace)