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

LG-12534 FSM clean up #11578

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

jennyverdeyen
Copy link
Member

@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen commented Dec 2, 2024

🎫 Ticket

Link to the relevant ticket:
LG-12534

🛠 Summary of changes

Removes remaining Flow State Machine related files and references

📜 Testing Plan

No new functionality is being added, but manual regression testing is needed to ensure nothing has been adversely affected.

  • Test the in-person proofing flow
  • Test the hybrid flow
  • The flow state machine previously controlled the flow between steps, so be sure to test back button and back link functionality, jumping from future steps to previous steps and vice versa.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This file removal is a long time coming! Excited to see it happening.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same! Go @jennyverdeyen!

@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen force-pushed the jverdeyen/LG-12534-FSM-clean-up branch from f9d621b to 7174c83 Compare December 3, 2024 22:56
@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen changed the title DRAFT: LG-12534 FSM clean up DRAFT: LG-12534 FSM clean up part 1 Dec 6, 2024
@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen force-pushed the jverdeyen/LG-12534-FSM-clean-up branch 3 times, most recently from b8e2b3b to 2162849 Compare December 17, 2024 15:41
@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen force-pushed the jverdeyen/LG-12534-FSM-clean-up branch from 6b536d8 to 4386652 Compare January 15, 2025 15:11
@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen changed the title DRAFT: LG-12534 FSM clean up part 1 DRAFT: LG-12534 FSM clean up Jan 15, 2025
@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen marked this pull request as ready for review January 15, 2025 17:14
@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen changed the title DRAFT: LG-12534 FSM clean up LG-12534 FSM clean up Jan 15, 2025
@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen requested review from a team and WilliamBirdsall January 15, 2025 18:05
Copy link
Contributor

@eileen-nava eileen-nava left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tested locally and used telephony to test the hybrid flow. Things worked well. Approved.

:set_usps_form_presenter,
:redirect_unless_enrollment,
:initialize_in_person_session,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good to see this added. 💪🏻

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was going to ask if there's a benefit to increasing test coverage for the functionality of theinitialize_in_person_session method, but I realize it's tricky to test private methods. I'm curious what you think.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same! Go @jennyverdeyen!

step = local_assigns[:action] || local_assigns[:step]
path = (step_url && step) ? send(step_url, step: step) : go_back_path
path = go_back_path
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🤩

Comment on lines -14 to -16
step_url = local_assigns[:step_url] || @step_url
step = local_assigns[:action] || local_assigns[:step]
path = (step_url && step) ? send(step_url, step: step) : go_back_path
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we update the code documentation above to remove action and step_url if they're no longer relevant?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants