fix(j-s): Allow prison system users to see rulings

[oddsson]

Allow prison system users to see rulings

Asana

What

Enable prison system admins to see ruling case files.

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• Formatting passes locally with my changes
• I have rebased against main before asking for a review

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Enhanced case file handling based on user roles and case types, improving processing logic.
  • Expanded prison administration case file categories to include additional relevant types.

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved control flow for case file manipulation, ensuring accuracy in case processing.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes involve updates to the CaseFileInterceptor and caseFileCategory files within the judicial system application. The CaseFileInterceptor now includes additional checks for case types and user roles, introducing utility functions to refine case file handling. The caseFileCategory file expands the categories available for prison administration, allowing for a broader classification of case files. Additionally, the test suite for the Limited Access View Case File Guard has been updated to reflect these changes in case file categories.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/interceptors/caseFile.interceptor.ts	Added utility functions isIndictmentCase and isRestrictionCase to improve case file handling logic based on user roles and case types.
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/caseFileCategory.ts	Modified prisonAdminCaseFileCategories to include CaseFileCategory.RULING, expanding case file categorization.
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/test/limitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard.spec.ts	Updated allowedCaseFileCategories in tests to include CaseFileCategory.RULING, broadening test coverage for case file access.

Tip

Announcements

• The review status is no longer posted as a separate comment when there are no actionable or nitpick comments. In such cases, the review status is included in the walkthrough comment.
• We have updated our review workflow to use the Anthropic's Claude family of models. Please share any feedback in the discussion post on our Discord.
• Possibly related PRs: Walkthrough comment now includes a list of potentially related PRs to help you recall past context. Please share any feedback in the discussion post on our Discord.
• Suggested labels: CodeRabbit can now suggest labels by learning from your past PRs in the walkthrough comment. You can also provide custom labeling instructions in the UI or configuration file.
• Possibly related PRs, automatic label suggestions based on past PRs, learnings, and possibly related issues require data opt-in (enabled by default).

---

Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0ddf450 and 6c241d4.

Files selected for processing (1)

• apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/test/limitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard.spec.ts (1 hunks)

Additional context used

Path-based instructions (1)

apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/test/limitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard.spec.ts (1)

Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:

• NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
• Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
• Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."

Additional comments not posted (1)

apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/test/limitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard.spec.ts (1)

227-230: LGTM!

The change to include CaseFileCategory.RULING in the allowedCaseFileCategories array for prison system users aligns with the PR objective. The test suite will now correctly validate the expanded access for prison system users.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[datadog-island-is]

Datadog Report

All test runs 9f5998a 🔗

✅ 5 Total Test Services: 0 Failed, 5 Passed
🔻 Test Sessions change in coverage: 1 decreased (-0.01%), 8 no change

Test Services

Service Name	Failed	Known Flaky	New Flaky	Passed	Skipped	Total Time	Code Coverage Change	Test Service View
api	0	0	0	4	0	2.56s	1 no change	Link
application-system-api	0	0	0	111	2	3m 18.22s	1 no change	Link
application-template-api-modules	0	0	0	109	0	1m 39.01s	1 decreased (-0.01%)	Link
application-ui-shell	0	0	0	74	0	31.17s	1 no change	Link
judicial-system-backend	0	0	0	21189	0	18m 54.09s	1 no change	Link

🔻 Code Coverage Decreases vs Default Branch (1)

• application-template-api-modules - jest 25.59% (-0.01%) - Details

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 16.66667% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 36.80%. Comparing base (2848c41) to head (6c241d4).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../modules/case/interceptors/caseFile.interceptor.ts	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15935      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   36.80%   36.80%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        6692     6692              
  Lines      137094   137097       +3     
  Branches    38968    38971       +3     
==========================================
  Hits        50464    50464              
- Misses      86630    86633       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
api	3.39% <ø> (ø)
application-system-api	41.67% <ø> (ø)
application-template-api-modules	23.52% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
application-ui-shell	21.08% <ø> (ø)
judicial-system-backend	55.96% <16.66%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...nd/src/app/modules/file/guards/caseFileCategory.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../modules/case/interceptors/caseFile.interceptor.ts	18.18% <0.00%> (-2.88%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2848c41...6c241d4. Read the comment docs.