Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we drop a comment in analytics_events.rb near this event? along the lines of "if changing these properties, please update identity_verification_report.rb` too maybe?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there prior art for this kind of comment? I don't want to develop a new pattern if one exists. I didn't see anything but anaytics_events.rb is huge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no not really, I was just trying to think of a way we could catch (or at least warn about) these kinds of changes that could risk breaking analytics, because we can't quite write specs for it.
don't worry about inventing a new pattern
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I dug through yards tags and found @see. I threw up a PR with that included a reference to the query method here.
This commit makes a few small changes to the identity verification report: 1. Allow the report to be run without an issuer 2. Change the GPO verification counter to filter users who still new fraud review or in-person proofing 3. Change the final resolution event to filter users who still new fraud review, in-person, or GPO. Previously this used "deactivation_reason" which is not deprecated [skip changelog]
jmhooper
force-pushed
the
jmhooper-tweak-idv-report
branch
from
0840ff6 to
084ad7e
Compare
app/services/analytics_events.rb
Outdated
| # @param [Boolean] gpo_verification_pending Profile is awaiting gpo verificaiton | ||
| # @param [Boolean] in_person_verification_pending Profile is awaiting in person verificaiton | ||
| # @param [Idv::ProofingComponentsLogging] proofing_components User's current proofing components | ||
| # @see Reporting::IdentityVerificationReport#query This event is used by the identity verification report. |
2 participants
This commit makes a few small changes to the identity verification report: