LG-10255: Capture cardtype in sdk

[eileen-nava]

🎫 Ticket

Check ID 'card type' when using SDK

🛠 Summary of changes

• Correctly capture acuant document types during sdk image capture. Previously, all document types were captured as "undefined" and logged as "none."
• Update the logs to display when a value other than "none," "id," or "passport" is captured.
• Update spec file to use the key "cardtype" instead of "cardType"
• Write a test for the new log option

📜 Testing Plan

• Run automated tests.
• N.B. I didn't notice this bug until I made an actual request to acuant, rather than using our mock client. As a result, I think acceptance testing done in staging will be more effective than manual testing with the mock client.

👀 Screenshots

Here's a screenshot debugger, which shows the cardType/cardtype bug.

Screenshot:

P.S. This seems like it might be a bug in the Acuant SDK, because their documentation indicates that the response from the onCropped callback should use cardType, not cardtype.

[aduth]

Not blocking this, but could be worth flagging this with Acuant support folks, due to the inconsistency in the documentation. It looks like they have at least one internal reference to the wrong property name in their own code as well, which might be similarly broken:

https://github.com/Acuant/JavascriptWebSDKV11/blob/11.8.1/webSdk/AcuantCamera.js#L1468

[aduth]

LGTM 👍

[aduth]

I'm not entirely clear why we're setting the casing here this way, since the code never references it. To exercise the new default case, would we want to use the correct casing on the property, but a value that's not accounted for (e.g. 3, 4, or undefined explicitly?).

Suggested change

	const ACUANT_CAPTURE_CARDTYPE_ERROR = { ...ACUANT_CAPTURE_SUCCESS_RESULT };
	delete ACUANT_CAPTURE_CARDTYPE_ERROR.cardtype;
	ACUANT_CAPTURE_CARDTYPE_ERROR.cardType = 2;
	const ACUANT_CAPTURE_CARDTYPE_ERROR = { ...ACUANT_CAPTURE_SUCCESS_RESULT, cardtype: undefined };

[eileen-nava]

Sure, that works! I changed this and did the setup in the test itself.

[eileen-nava]

Not blocking this, but could be worth flagging this with Acuant support folks, due to the inconsistency in the documentation. It looks like they have at least one internal reference to the wrong property name in their own code as well, which might be similarly broken:

https://github.com/Acuant/JavascriptWebSDKV11/blob/11.8.1/webSdk/AcuantCamera.js#L1468

Yeah, I agree that it would be good to flag to Acuant support folks. Should I reach out to a specific person at Acuant who works with GSA? Or post an issue in the acuant repo?

[aduth]

Yeah, I agree that it would be good to flag to Acuant support folks. Should I reach out to a specific person at Acuant who works with GSA? Or post an issue in the acuant repo?

I'll follow-up on Slack!