Conversation
d4df874 to
ca9d0ca
Compare
ca9d0ca to
e0f8a46
Compare
| if IdentityConfig.store.in_person_proofing_opt_in_option | ||
| redirect_to idv_how_to_verify_url |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It makes a lot of sense to branch off this new page from the Agreement page! Lmk if you want to pair on any of this - setting up an A/B test, wrangling changes to the flow, etc.
Co-authored-by: Zach Margolis <zachmargolis@users.noreply.github.com>
…in page after agreement and before remote flow
0fcce87 to
f056a21
Compare
sheldon-b
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking good! Left a few comments I expect are already on your to-do list
Co-authored-by: Sheldon Bachstein <sheldon.bachstein@gsa.gov>
Co-authored-by: Zach Margolis <zachmargolis@users.noreply.github.com>
4fefd66 to
b24156e
Compare
n1zyy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm still getting used to the team's norms so I'm not sure if I should leave an approval just yet, but this looks great to me!
I spotted two possible things that are incredibly minor; I mentioned them in case you end up pushing another revision and agree with the comments, but please feel free to ignore them as well.
config/locales/doc_auth/es.yml
Outdated
| text_message: Enviamos un mensaje a su teléfono | ||
| upload_from_computer: Continuar en esta computadora | ||
| upload_from_phone: Utilice su teléfono para tomar las fotos | ||
| verify_at_post_office: Verifique su identidad en una Oficina de Correos |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh gosh I feel bad only finding ridiculously trivial things (I guess that's because this looks great?), but it looks like @gina-yamada's PR moves "Oficina de Correos" to lowercase. Was that part of an official change we want to duplicate here?
(Also, I'm not actually trying to review copy changes in other languages at all; my eyes just happened to notice this one for some reason.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Welll hmm. @carmenrosalop noticed that I had the English version lowercased and that it needed to be capitalized. I believe these translations were already provided with the term capitalized. I'll defer to Carmen on this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch! Yes, Carmen and I just discussed this in my PR because I also had the C capitalized. If you do a global search for Post Office in Spanish, they are all lower case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@allthesignals @gina-yamada Hey! Two days ago we were debating whether we should keep the Spanish and French version of Post Office in upper case, and we looked more into it and on the USPS website, the translation to Spanish shows it with lowercase. So we're going to follow that approach for French and Spanish of keeping the translation of Post Office lower case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, updated, but can @gina-yamada give it a once over for me?
Good eye, @n1zyy!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes! Reviewing it now. I will comment when I am finished.
Co-authored-by: Matt Wagner <mattwagner@navapbc.com>
|
D’oh! Unless Carmen objects, I am A-OK with leaving this as you have it.
Wanted to flag it in case it had an obvious resolution, but I didn’t mean
to hold things up over it.
…On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 18:04 Matt Gardner ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In config/locales/doc_auth/es.yml
<#9452 (comment)>:
> @@ -214,7 +215,9 @@ es:
text_message: Enviamos un mensaje a su teléfono
upload_from_computer: Continuar en esta computadora
upload_from_phone: Utilice su teléfono para tomar las fotos
+ verify_at_post_office: Verifique su identidad en una Oficina de Correos
Welll hmm. @carmenrosalop <https://github.com/carmenrosalop> noticed that
I had the English version lowercased and that it needed to be capitalized.
I believe these translations were already provided with the term
capitalized. I'll defer to Carmen on this!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#9452 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACM2J63FO265JW375AN5R3YCQKFXAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6P27RBKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMYTOMJRGMYTGMRZGI>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@allthesignals The page looks great! Here are some notes from my testing... When
|
|
|
||
| before_action :confirm_step_allowed | ||
|
|
||
| check_or_render_not_found -> { self.class.enabled? } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not seeing a not found page when I type in the url. We displayed the 404 view when we worked on the non-FSM views. I think it is a good idea. I am not sure this is working.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmmm. Good eye. Thanks.
I think @sheldon-b will add this in a follow-up PR? This feature depends on the particulars of routing so I skipped it. |
| end | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| it 'displays expected content and requires a choice' do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you think about adding another context block and moving this it block inside?
context 'opt-in ipp is turned on' do
sheldon-b
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good! With and without the flag -- routing behaves as I expect. So when the feature flag is turned off it skips the new page. With the feature flag turned on it shows the new page and choosing either option proceeds to remote proofing (which is what we want for this ticket -- conditional routing will come next)
Responsiveness looks right using dev tools
One small request to update the routing to match the previous behavior when the user chooses remote proofing
Co-authored-by: Sheldon Bachstein <sheldon.bachstein@gsa.gov>
8649eee to
b138bfd
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm seeing some flakey test failures from this file on an unrelated pull request. Can you take a look @allthesignals ?

🎫 Ticket
🛠 Summary of changes
Draft PR to add the IPP opt-in page.
If
in_person_proofing_opt_in_enabledis on, direct from the agreement page to the proofing method selection page (/how-to-verify)📜 Testing Plan
N/A
👀 Screenshots
IRL:

en
es

fr

Design spec:
