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

Allow none as a valid evidence type for Supp Claims #11689

Merged
merged 0 commits into from
Feb 2, 2023

Conversation

michelpmcdonald
Copy link
Contributor

@michelpmcdonald michelpmcdonald commented Feb 1, 2023

Summary

Due to some PACT act adjustments, Supplemental Claims no longer requires claimant specified supporting evidence.

To support this, we updated Supplemental Claims' JSON schema to allow evidenceSubmission::evidenceType to be set to "none".

EvidenceType is an array, if "none" is included, the other two values, "upload" and "retrieval", cannot be included in the EvidenceType Array, this is enforced in the Schema.

team banana-peels owns this code.

A schema change requires our Swagger Documentation to be updated, although this ticket only made a change to Supplemental Claims Documentation, some previous changes were made to our Swagger "source" files, but the Swagger Documents were not re-generated at that time. When I re-generated our Swagger docs for this ticket, I also picked up some some swagger doc changes from that previous ticket, we decided to keep all the Swagger Docs changes in this PR.

Related issue(s)

Testing done

Tested via manual testing and with unit test coverage

Screenshots

image

What areas of the site does it impact?

This impacts our Supplemental Claims "create" endpoint

Acceptance criteria

  • I fixed|updated|added unit tests and integration tests for each feature (if applicable).
  • No error nor warning in the console.
  • Documentation has been updated (this schema is a from of documentation)
  • No sensitive information (i.e. PII/credentials/internal URLs/etc.) is captured in logging, hardcoded, or specs

Requested Feedback

(OPTIONAL)What should the reviewers know in addition to the above. Is there anything specific you wish the reviewer to assist with. Do you have any concerns with this PR, why?

@michelpmcdonald michelpmcdonald added Lighthouse lighthouse appeals Lighthouse API appeals banana-peels Lighthouse Banana Peels Team labels Feb 1, 2023
@va-vfs-bot va-vfs-bot temporarily deployed to API-23202_no_evidence_scs/main/main February 1, 2023 00:12 Inactive
@va-vfs-bot va-vfs-bot temporarily deployed to API-23202_no_evidence_scs/main/main February 1, 2023 00:25 Inactive
@va-vfs-bot va-vfs-bot temporarily deployed to API-23202_no_evidence_scs/main/main February 1, 2023 00:50 Inactive
@michelpmcdonald michelpmcdonald marked this pull request as ready for review February 1, 2023 14:39
@michelpmcdonald michelpmcdonald requested review from a team as code owners February 1, 2023 14:39
Copy link
Contributor

@caseywilliams caseywilliams left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I checked this out locally and tried it with postman - looks like it's working but I had one request

modules/appeals_api/config/schemas/v2/200995.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@va-vfs-bot va-vfs-bot temporarily deployed to API-23202_no_evidence_scs/main/main February 1, 2023 16:36 Inactive
@va-vfs-bot va-vfs-bot temporarily deployed to API-23202_no_evidence_scs/main/main February 1, 2023 16:53 Inactive
Copy link
Contributor

@cilestin cilestin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tiny change (git commit -a strikes again ;) ) and some light reading on the json fixture files. Lookin' good!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
appeals Lighthouse API appeals banana-peels Lighthouse Banana Peels Team Lighthouse lighthouse
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants