#1791 - Enable Assessments tab view and NOA view for Public Institution Users - Part 4 #1976

ann-aot · 2023-05-30T02:09:45Z

1 - Offering change and scholastic change related changes and related e2e
2 - @andrewsignori-aot comment from my previous is addressed, https://github.com/bcgov/SIMS/pull/1952#discussion_r1207267373\
Screenshots:

Ministry view with offering change,

Institutions view with offering change

2- Ministry view with scholastic standing.

Institutions view scholastic standing,

3- new TC,

Next PR:

I will be addressing @dheepak-aot comment added in my last PR, #1791 - Enable Assessments tab view and NOA view for Public Institution Users - Part 3 #1952 (comment)

.../packages/backend/apps/api/src/route-controllers/assessment/assessment.controller.service.ts

andrewsignori-aot · 2023-05-31T20:33:13Z

sources/packages/backend/libs/test-utils/src/factories/disbursement-receipt-value.ts

 * @returns disbursement receipt value.
 */
 export function createFakeDisbursementReceiptValue(
+  initialValues: Partial<DisbursementReceiptValue>,


Just checking, did the team agree with this?

I prefer using the options as we've been doing.

From the last PR comment, I believe @guru-aot and myself were good with this approach and @andrewsignori-aot you proposed it.

as discussed, keeping as it is

From the last PR comment, I believe @guru-aot and myself were good with this approach and @andrewsignori-aot you proposed it.

@dheepak-aot to be clear I was asking if the other devs expressed their opinions on that opportunity and we came to a conclusion 😉
We can try this for now and change it along the way if needed.
As I mentioned to @ann-aot and @andrepestana-aot in a previous chat, I am more open to this type of approach for E2E. If it were a production code I would be leaning to have everything explicit as parameters somehow.

sources/packages/backend/libs/test-utils/src/factories/offering-change-request.ts

andrewsignori-aot · 2023-05-31T21:06:31Z

...ent/_tests_/e2e/assessment.institutions.controller.getRequestedAssessmentSummary.e2e-spec.ts

+      );
+
+      // Act/Assert
+      await request(app.getHttpServer())


My only concern about this type of test (where no result is expected) is that we need to be really sure that we have the proper data setup in place.
One idea would be calling the method this.educationProgramOfferingService.getOfferingRequestsByApplicationId to ensure that some data would be returned if the showOfferingChange was true, but I am not sure about the approach. Thoughts?

One way would be setting up the test to get the details, assert that we get the details, change it in the DB and assert that we don't get the details. This way would be clear that it is because of the changes we did that we are getting a different response.

The point about this endpoint is that the user does not have access to the "Offering Change Requests" at all.
It may work for other situations, but I am not sure if it would work for this specific one.

IMO, this validation could be a part of test case at line 57 to return only valid assessment summary list by adding an offering change to the data and expect API response not have requested offering change.

Yes, i agree the part of this test case can return the list by adding the offerings in the data arrange.

Please keep in mind that the "Offering Change Requests" are executed by a different query on an isolated if condition. It is not about one query returning more or fewer records.

as discussed adding ministry endpoint check, to validate the scenario

@ann-aot I am ok with the approach, I am just leaving the comment open for the other DEVs have the opportunity to review also.

Offering Change Requests

@andrewsignori-aot not sure if this response was quoted for my comment. If so I was talking about expecting API result not having offering change in the array result, when there is an offering change for the application.

If not please ignore my comment 😊

andrewsignori-aot

Nice work, just minor comments.

andrepestana-aot

Great job. Please take a look at Signori's comments.

.../packages/backend/apps/api/src/route-controllers/assessment/assessment.controller.service.ts

dheepak-aot · 2023-06-01T01:16:27Z

sources/packages/backend/libs/test-utils/src/factories/offering-change-request.ts

+
+/**
+ * Create a fake offering request change.
+ * @param relations dependencies:


dependencies.? (ending with period)

@dheepak-aot I really didn't find any issue with the : or, or . when we are expanding the details of a param object in the next lines. we do have some similar comments in our repo. devs let me know your thoughts.

Neither I @ann-aot . It is just that we never had that idea agreed among devs.
It's minor but we can check once now and take it forward.

@andrewsignori-aot @guru-aot @andrepestana-aot @sh16011993 ?

@dheepak-aot I believe our idea (or what we agreed upon) was never to use always .. it was to use a proper readable English sentence (starting with caps, ,,.,: etc.. whenever wherever needed). Maybe that's the reason, we never had to discuss or agree upon a scenario like this, at least for me, that was my understanding.

To be clear, period(.) is a part of proper readable English. As you mentioned, if we are considering starting with caps, the comment here doesn't start with caps.
Coming to the point, I am not talking about usage of . or :. Rather I am talking about the idea of using introduction text for options properties where : is appropriate for describing options as we do now.

Because that I am seeing both ways 1. @param options commented with short summary ending with period (instead of introduction ending with : ) and it's properties are commented with it's own description and 2. the other way which is done here. Wanted to follow one way consistently.

I would recommend jumping on to a call and wrap up discussions instead for the benefit of time.

I am going to assume both the ways work and wrap this point here.
Let us just consider #1976 (comment) further for this PR.

@dheepak-aot I have no idea, why this simple idea/ conversation is going this far. If you still want to discuss this and devs are available we can have a quick sync up, not sure, if it is worth it

@dheepak-aot I believe our idea (or what we agreed upon) was never to use always .. it was to use a proper readable English sentence (starting with caps, ,,.,: etc.. whenever wherever needed). Maybe that's the reason, we never had to discuss or agree upon a scenario like this, at least for me, that was my understanding.

As I mentioned in above comment, I really don't want to spend team's time about this as it is very trivial. It is just that I am not in same page with what has been discussed.

dheepak-aot · 2023-06-01T01:37:55Z

Great to see Institution student tabs getting close to be done.

I have a question regarding the ticket for @JasonCTang

Why should institution not see the scholastic standing view request form? Is it because it may be redundant to them as they already have access to this information?

guru-aot

Please have a look on the other dev comments. Nice work @ann-aot

andrewsignori-aot

Thanks for doing the changes, looks good 👍

andrepestana-aot

Great job!

dheepak-aot · 2023-06-01T23:46:09Z

...ent/_tests_/e2e/assessment.institutions.controller.getRequestedAssessmentSummary.e2e-spec.ts

+
+      // Checking the same scenario with the ministry endpoint with a ministry user, to make sure that a fake offering change was created.
+      // Arrange.
+      const ministryEndpoint = `/aest/assessment/application/${application.id}/requests`;


Testing a ministry endpoint at assessment.institutions.controller.*spec is against the pattern that we have been following in e2e.

I am not able to follow the reason for doing it.

As @andrewsignori-aot mentioned #1976 (comment) and the comment stated in the code, it's not a aest endpoint check, it is just to validate the scenario, whether the offering change was actually created and that's is the reason, the institution endpoint is returning empty list (result without an offering change)

I am not able to follow @ann-aot . To validate a scenario we are are calling an endpoint here which I feel is an E2E test for an endpoint even though the intention is to validate a scenario.

guru-aot

LGTM, nice work @ann-aot

ann-aot · 2023-06-02T15:59:08Z

Great to see Institution student tabs getting close to be done.

I have a question regarding the ticket for @JasonCTang

Why should institution not see the scholastic standing view request form? Is it because it may be redundant to them as they already have access to this information?

@dheepak-aot While I was working on ticket, me and @JasonCTang had a discussion on this, this screen is actually used by an institution when a student need any support, sometimes students may be sitting next to the institution while they are viewing these page, so, the idea/requirement for now is to only show whatever a student has access/view in their portal

dheepak-aot · 2023-06-02T17:40:28Z

While I was working on ticket, me and @JasonCTang had a discussion on th

Thanks for explaining. I can remember this point now.

sonarqubecloud · 2023-06-02T20:19:52Z

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

github-actions · 2023-06-02T20:27:48Z

Backend Unit Tests Coverage Report

Totals
Statements:	17.95% ( 2091 / 11650 )
Methods:	8.23% ( 123 / 1494 )
Lines:	20.73% ( 1832 / 8838 )
Branches:	10.32% ( 136 / 1318 )

github-actions · 2023-06-02T20:28:50Z

E2E Workflow Workers Coverage Report

Totals
Statements:	49.81% ( 267 / 536 )
Methods:	41.56% ( 32 / 77 )
Lines:	55.33% ( 218 / 394 )
Branches:	26.15% ( 17 / 65 )

github-actions · 2023-06-02T20:29:18Z

E2E Queue Consumers Coverage Report

Totals
Statements:	69.4% ( 390 / 562 )
Methods:	59.15% ( 42 / 71 )
Lines:	71.52% ( 344 / 481 )
Branches:	40% ( 4 / 10 )

dheepak-aot

Thanks for doing the changes 👍Looks good @ann-aot

github-actions · 2023-06-02T20:34:04Z

E2E SIMS API Coverage Report

Totals
Statements:	43.39% ( 3021 / 6962 )
Methods:	37.65% ( 340 / 903 )
Lines:	48.49% ( 2520 / 5197 )
Branches:	18.68% ( 161 / 862 )

initail commit

b4eb785

ann-aot self-assigned this May 30, 2023

ann-aot added User Experience task that relates to UI UX E2E/Unit tests labels May 30, 2023

ann-aot added 2 commits May 31, 2023 13:32

refactor

04bfebf

refactor

b66e415

ann-aot requested review from dheepak-aot, sh16011993, hellolynn-tbtb, andrewsignori-aot, guru-aot, andrepestana-aot and JasonCTang May 31, 2023 19:19

ann-aot marked this pull request as ready for review May 31, 2023 19:19

Merge branch 'main' into feature/sims-#1791-part-4

55c6b38

andrewsignori-aot reviewed May 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

.../packages/backend/apps/api/src/route-controllers/assessment/assessment.controller.service.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

andrewsignori-aot reviewed May 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

sources/packages/backend/libs/test-utils/src/factories/offering-change-request.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

andrewsignori-aot reviewed May 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

sources/packages/backend/libs/test-utils/src/factories/offering-change-request.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

andrewsignori-aot reviewed May 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

andrepestana-aot reviewed May 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

dheepak-aot reviewed May 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

.../packages/backend/apps/api/src/route-controllers/assessment/assessment.controller.service.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

dheepak-aot reviewed Jun 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

guru-aot reviewed Jun 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

ann-aot added 4 commits June 1, 2023 17:58

feedback

22446b8

feedback

6c3484b

feedback

6c01650

feedback

67f4238

feedback

deb97a1

andrewsignori-aot approved these changes Jun 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

andrepestana-aot approved these changes Jun 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

dheepak-aot reviewed Jun 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

guru-aot approved these changes Jun 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

fedback

83c2111

dheepak-aot approved these changes Jun 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

ann-aot merged commit a494bfa into main Jun 2, 2023

ann-aot temporarily deployed to DEV June 2, 2023 20:58 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

ann-aot temporarily deployed to DEV June 2, 2023 20:59 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

ann-aot temporarily deployed to DEV June 2, 2023 21:10 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

ann-aot temporarily deployed to DEV June 2, 2023 21:12 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

ann-aot deleted the feature/sims-#1791-part-4 branch June 5, 2023 22:04

#1791 - Enable Assessments tab view and NOA view for Public Institution Users - Part 4 #1976

#1791 - Enable Assessments tab view and NOA view for Public Institution Users - Part 4 #1976

Conversation

ann-aot commented May 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dheepak-aot Jun 1, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andrewsignori-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andrepestana-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dheepak-aot Jun 2, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dheepak-aot commented Jun 1, 2023

guru-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andrewsignori-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andrepestana-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

guru-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ann-aot commented Jun 2, 2023

dheepak-aot commented Jun 2, 2023

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jun 2, 2023

github-actions bot commented Jun 2, 2023

Backend Unit Tests Coverage Report

github-actions bot commented Jun 2, 2023

E2E Workflow Workers Coverage Report

github-actions bot commented Jun 2, 2023

E2E Queue Consumers Coverage Report

dheepak-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Jun 2, 2023

E2E SIMS API Coverage Report

ann-aot commented May 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

dheepak-aot Jun 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

dheepak-aot Jun 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading