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-10206 Move STEP_INDICATOR_STEP constants out of InPersonFlow #11607

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jennyverdeyen
Copy link
Member

🎫 Ticket

Link to the relevant ticket:
LG-10206

🛠 Summary of changes

Moves STEP_INDICATOR_STEPS from InPersonFlow into StepIndicatorConcern. InPersonFlow is FSM-related and will get deleted in a future clean-up PR, so these constants need to be moved as they are still used for the IPP step indicator. References to the old Idv::Flows::InPersonFlow::STEP_INDICATOR_STEPS are updated to reference the new constants.

Note: For 50/50 state management, the old constants in the InPersonFlow are not being removed in this PR.

📜 Testing Plan

No new features or behavior was added - regression testing would be good:

  • Perform manual regression testing of the IPP flow, as well as hybrid and remote flows to be thorough.
  • Ensure tests pass

@jennyverdeyen jennyverdeyen requested review from a team and KeithNava December 6, 2024 17:07
@@ -83,11 +83,7 @@ def pii_locked?
end

def step_indicator_steps
if in_person_proofing?
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was probably just missed in the IPP GPO removal, I did some manual testing and this condition should never be true. There is no longer a need for IPP GPO steps so I updated this block.

@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ def confirm_letter_sends_allowed

def step_indicator_steps
if in_person_proofing?
Idv::Flows::InPersonFlow::STEP_INDICATOR_STEPS_GPO
Idv::StepIndicatorConcern::STEP_INDICATOR_STEPS_IPP
else
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have not tested but I am wondering if this if statement should also be deleted? (Below is resend the letter- I think this is the original send letter)

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.

2 participants