2722/circleci

[George-Hudson]

Summary of Changes

Provide a brief summary of changes
Pull request closes #_

How to Test

List the steps to test the PR
These steps are generic, please adjust as necessary.

cd tdrs-frontend && docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.local.yml up -d
cd tdrs-backend && docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.local.yml up -d 

1. Open http://localhost:3000/ and sign in.
2. Proceed with functional tests as described herein.
3. Test steps should be captured in the demo GIF(s) and/or screenshots below.

Demo GIF(s) and screenshots for testing procedure

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• [insert ACs here]
• lfrohlich and/or adpennington confirmed that ACs are met.

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

• Are all areas of code introduced in this PR meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces backend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces frontend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
• Are code coverage minimums met?
  • Frontend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)
  • Backend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

• Are backend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are frontend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are code maintainability principles being followed?

Deliverable 4: Accessible

• Does this PR complete the epic?
• Are links included to any other gov-approved PRs associated with epic?
• Does PR include documentation for Raft's a11y review?
• Did automated and manual testing with iamjolly and ttran-hub using Accessibility Insights reveal any errors introduced in this PR?

Deliverable 5: Deployed

• Was the code successfully deployed via automated CircleCI process to development on Cloud.gov?

Deliverable 6: Documented

• Does this PR provide background for why coding decisions were made?
• If this PR introduces backend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces frontend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces dependencies, are their licenses documented?
• Can reviewer explain and take ownership of these elements presented in this code review?

Deliverable 7: Secure

• Does the OWASP Scan pass on CircleCI?
• Do manual code review and manual testing detect any new security issues?
• If new issues detected, is investigation and/or remediation plan documented?

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

• the purpose of the research
• methods used to conduct the research
• who participated in the research
• what was tested and how
• impact of research on TDP
• (if applicable) final design mockups produced for TDP development

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (6557594) 93.61% compared to head (96ad239) 93.67%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2739      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    93.61%   93.67%   +0.05%     
===========================================
  Files          259      262       +3     
  Lines         5998     6053      +55     
  Branches       501      503       +2     
===========================================
+ Hits          5615     5670      +55     
  Misses         287      287              
  Partials        96       96              

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	93.83% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
dev-frontend	92.83% <ø> (ø)

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

Files	Coverage Δ
...-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tanf/t2.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ervice/parsers/schema_defs/tribal_tanf/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...d/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tribal_tanf/t2.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...d/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tribal_tanf/t7.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/parsers/test/factories.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/parsers/util.py	87.59% <ø> (ø)
...ackend/tdpservice/search_indexes/admin/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...-backend/tdpservice/search_indexes/admin/tribal.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ackend/tdpservice/search_indexes/documents/tanf.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...kend/tdpservice/search_indexes/documents/tribal.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 4 more

---

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 b35795f...96ad239. Read the comment docs.

[andrew-jameson]

LGTM. Per office hours 9.8, pending testing in HHS via George

[raftmsohani]

LGTM!

[ADPennington]

verified normal behavior with file submissions in qasp environment. please verify again upon merge to develop. thanks @George-Hudson 🚀