2681 s1 enhancements

[elipe17]

Summary of Changes

• Updated WORK_PART_STATUS
• Added missing cat3 validator
• Updated FUNDING_STREAM validators
• Updated GENDER validators
• Updated OTHER_AMOUNT & TRANSITION_SERVICES_AMOUNT validators
• Updated DISPOSITION validators

Note: The FIPS/Tribe code update already exists because of the relation in the database. Accessing those fields within the record has also been covered in #2805 by adding STT as a queryable field in the search indices.

Pull request closes #2681

How to Test

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

cd tdrs-frontend && docker-compose up
cd tdrs-backend && docker-compose up
pytest -k test_parse.py

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• validation checks noted above are accounted for
• Testing Checklist has been run and all tests pass
• README is updated, if necessary

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

Attention: Patch coverage is 79.31034% with 12 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.58%. Comparing base (fa65a68) to head (efc1d31).
Report is 5 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2817      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    93.63%   93.58%   -0.06%     
===========================================
  Files          266      268       +2     
  Lines         6083     6185     +102     
  Branches       513      526      +13     
===========================================
+ Hits          5696     5788      +92     
- Misses         294      305      +11     
+ Partials        93       92       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	93.76% <79.31%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
dev-frontend	92.62% <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/t1.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tanf/t2.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/parsers/validators.py	89.95% <79.31%> (-3.34%)	⬇️

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

---

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 55b2470...efc1d31. Read the comment docs.

[raftmsohani]

LGTM!

[atrimpe]

👍

[ADPennington]

@elipe17 approval here is pending your input on the test notes here, specifically: when AGE is invalid (i.e. DOB==20 0114), WEI == 11, and HOH == 1: the following errors are raised:
20 0114 does not have exactly 8 digits ✔️
20 must be larger than year 1900 ✔️
If WORK_ELIGIBLE_INDICATOR == 11 and AGE < 19, then RELATIONSHIP_HOH != 1 ⚠️ (unsure why this would be raised since age is invalid)

[elipe17]

@elipe17 approval here is pending your input on the test notes here, specifically: when AGE is invalid (i.e. DOB==20 0114), WEI == 11, and HOH == 1: the following errors are raised: 20 0114 does not have exactly 8 digits ✔️ 20 must be larger than year 1900 ✔️ If WORK_ELIGIBLE_INDICATOR == 11 and AGE < 19, then RELATIONSHIP_HOH != 1 ⚠️ (unsure why this would be raised since age is invalid)

@ADPennington that error arrises because of the exception handling in the new validator. If you would prefer to return a true case during an exception that is a quick change. Let me know your thoughts.

[ADPennington]

just noting for reference that this validator is not needed.

[ADPennington]

thanks for the quick fix @elipe17 👍🏾

test notes updated here

Also, I noticed some updates to the olderThan validator, but to my knowledge, that validator isn't needed since we dont calculate age relative to today's date.