Hotfix/cf check

[andrew-jameson]

Summary of Changes

Pipelines cannot currently deploy as the cloudfoundry cli is not accessible from cloudfoundry.org. We had some parts of our pipeline referencing this location instead of our Nexus location. Am seeking to standardize use of cf-check.sh which has the wrinkle of now running on multiple executor environments.

How to Test

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 ✅

Project coverage is 91.49%. Comparing base (58c69c8) to head (0a34019).
Report is 5 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3340   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    91.49%   91.49%           
========================================
  Files          297      297           
  Lines         8433     8433           
  Branches       611      611           
========================================
  Hits          7716     7716           
  Misses         604      604           
  Partials       113      113           

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	91.35% <ø> (ø)
dev-frontend	92.51% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out 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 1bd1a43...0a34019. Read the comment docs.