LG-11352: Remove Double Address Verification from job arguments

[JackRyan1989]

🎫 Ticket

Open Question

We are removing the double_address_verification variable and replacing it with ipp_enrollment_in_progress. DAV used to be a configuration value, but since we're doing ipp_enrollment_in_progress that will always be true if a user's enrollment is either pending, or establishing. Which as they are moving through the flow, is always true.

1. Do we need to check in the proofer, adjudicator and resolution job for cases where this could be false? Could ipp_enrollment_in_progress ever be false when this code is being run?
   Answer: NO. ipp_enrollment_in_progress is serving to distinguish between the remote proofing and ipp flows. Some information is only relevant for IPP or remote, and we want to maintain that separation.

If not, then I could cut out a few things to have them always or never happen.

🛠 Summary of changes

Removed the double_address_verification variable.

📜 Testing Plan

Nothing should change. All specs should continue to pass.
As a test, run through the IPP flow, and on the address step first select:

1. No my address is different from the one on my ID
2. Proofing Job should not fail

Create a new enrollment.

1. Yes my address is the same as the one on my ID
2. Proofing Job should not fail

[aduth]

Will we need to split this over several deploys to gracefully handle 50/50 states?

Ref: https://handbook.login.gov/articles/manage-50-50-state.html#jobs

[svalexander]

This pr is a follow up to this one where ipp_enrollment_in_progress was added in order to eventually replace double_address_verification. This should satisfy the 50/50 requirements correct?

[aduth]

It looks like this pull request includes both of Deploy 2 ("Remove the argument in calls to the job") and Deploy 3 ("Remove the argument") from under "Remove an argument from a job #perform method".

Remove the argument in calls to the job: https://github.com/18F/identity-idp/pull/9829/files#diff-b4c1fa063fe7add8eae466de029891f060102bf5c16e4e69e88fe76e5676332fL31

Remove the argument [in the job itself]: https://github.com/18F/identity-idp/pull/9829/files#diff-32ee3d7bfb2561fc0fdef096c00c6533d565fb019e842a72be42b16b9fdaa959L22

[JackRyan1989]

Yeah thanks @aduth this PR should be broken into two. @svalexander I didn't quite get it right with the first PR you referenced. That one made sure the jobs are aware of ipp_enrollment_in_progress and that the agent.rb file passes in the correct value to the jobs.

[svalexander]

we should probably still keep this definition in addition to the newly added info that it's used in place of the dav flag

[JackRyan1989]

Is the DAV flag still in place? I thought it was removed from the config?

[svalexander]

it's removed - i was thinking the new comment should be more like: ~ # @param [Boolean] ipp_enrollment_in_progress flag is used in place of DAV flag because DAV is # now always true # it indicates if both state id address and current residential address verified

[JackRyan1989]

I thought ipp_enrollment_in_progress indicates that an enrollment is either in the 'establishing' or 'in progress' statuses? Happy to be wrong though!

[svalexander]

yes but it was also meant as a replacement for double_address_verification . So it's like an in person enrollment exists for the user acting as a stand in for the user is going through the ipp flow.

[svalexander]

do we not need ipp_enrollment_in_progress here?

[JackRyan1989]

Soooo, my open question at the top is more along the lines of "do we need ipp_enrollment_in_progress at all, since I'm pretty sure it's always true? Except when an enrollment is failed or completed it's always in progress or establishing, right?"

[JackRyan1989]

Closing this in favor of a smaller, less convoluted git history.