[Delivers #102267428] pick highest pending approver on the stack

[pkarman]

fixes bug reported in QA for https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/102267428

[phirefly]

Looks like this is blowing up https://gist.github.com/phirefly/4f725ae6de6a4b43933f#file-error-2015-09-25-L7

likely because these records don't have pending approvals:
https://github.com/18F/C2/blob/master/app/mailers/report_mailer.rb#L20-L22

[pkarman]

I think bf1170c should fix it, whenever we return to QAing this.

[yozlet]

[annalee]

[pkarman]

@phirefly if/when this passes for you in stage, feel free to merge.

[jessieay]

what do you think about not having a comment here? I think this method's tests make it clear why it works this way, and having the comment could lead to more complications down the line.

For more details on this line of thinking, this is a killer blog post on why code comments can be tricky https://robots.thoughtbot.com/letting-your-code-speak-for-itself by the one and only @adarsh

[adarsh]

:thumbs_up:

On Monday, October 5, 2015, Jessie A. Young notifications@github.com
wrote:

In app/models/ncr/work_order.rb
#650 (comment):

@@ -114,8 +114,13 @@ def approving_official
self.approvers.first
end

• def approving_official_email_address

•  approving_official ? approving_official.email_address : self.system_approver_emails.first
  

• the highest approver on the stack, pending preferred if status indicates

what do you think about not having a comment here? I think this method's
tests make it clear why it works this way, and having the comment could
lead to more complications down the line.

For more details on this line of thinking, this is a killer blog post on
why code comments can be tricky
https://robots.thoughtbot.com/letting-your-code-speak-for-itself by the
one and only @adarsh https://github.com/adarsh

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/18F/C2/pull/650/files#r41155349.

@adarshp http://www.twitter.com/adarshp
313.454.1515 (mobile)
See when I am free: http://bit.ly/adarshcal