Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

#4270 - SFAS Bridge File - Expand Individual and Application data Import #4316

Conversation

dheepak-aot
Copy link
Collaborator

@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot commented Feb 4, 2025

SFAS Bridge File - Expand Individual and Application data Import

Import of extended data

  • Updated the file record object for SFAS Individual and SFAS Application.
  • Updated the data import service for SFAS Individual and SFAS Application.

image

image

SFAS Individuals

image

SFAS Applications

image

image

image

image

E2E Test

  • Created E2E test with almost all the values for SFAS Individual and SFAS Application import.
    image

@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot self-assigned this Feb 4, 2025
@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot changed the title #4270 - SFAS Bridge File - Expand Individual and Application data #4270 - SFAS Bridge File - Expand Individual and Application data Import Feb 4, 2025
Comment on lines +123 to +124
get applicationNumber(): number | null {
return parseInteger(this.line.substring(145, 155));
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not a blocker, no need to change it, but I have seen the two formats of executing the substring along the files (not this one is specific), 145, 155 vs 127, 127 + 10. I personally prefer the first one but I do not have a strong opinion other than "we should do it in the same way" 😉

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also saw the 2 formats there. I too prefer the format WITHOUT explicit addition. The existing individual record parser does not have the format with addition and I thought we could agree this way and move forward. I am also mindful about using the addition format for new record types in previous PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

@andrewsignori-aot andrewsignori-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice work, minor comments, please take a look.
Just double-checking, is the expectation that once the new file layouts replace the existing ones, these new fields will always be present?

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2025

Backend Unit Tests Coverage Report

Totals Coverage
Statements: 22.09% ( 3903 / 17665 )
Methods: 9.98% ( 226 / 2264 )
Lines: 25.43% ( 3369 / 13249 )
Branches: 14.31% ( 308 / 2152 )

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2025

E2E Workflow Workers Coverage Report

Totals Coverage
Statements: 65.59% ( 589 / 898 )
Methods: 59.63% ( 65 / 109 )
Lines: 68.72% ( 468 / 681 )
Branches: 51.85% ( 56 / 108 )

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2025

E2E Queue Consumers Coverage Report

Totals Coverage
Statements: 87.58% ( 1418 / 1619 )
Methods: 84.66% ( 160 / 189 )
Lines: 89.72% ( 1170 / 1304 )
Branches: 69.84% ( 88 / 126 )

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2025

E2E SIMS API Coverage Report

Totals Coverage
Statements: 68.41% ( 6118 / 8943 )
Methods: 66.29% ( 757 / 1142 )
Lines: 72.18% ( 4787 / 6632 )
Branches: 49.1% ( 574 / 1169 )

Copy link
Collaborator

@andrewsignori-aot andrewsignori-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for making the changes, looks good 👍

Copy link
Collaborator

@bidyashish bidyashish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couple of Questions.

Copy link
Collaborator

@bidyashish bidyashish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Collaborator

@lewischen-aot lewischen-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No comments. LGTM. Nice work 👍

@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 7, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 7ce8ff9 Feb 7, 2025
21 checks passed
@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot deleted the enhancement/#4270-sfas-bridge-expansion-file-expand-existing-types branch February 11, 2025 22:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants