fix(spp_registry): use correct field for id type in validation error

[gonzalesedwin1123]

Summary

• Fix AttributeError in spp.registry.id validation constraint caused by accessing .name on spp.vocabulary.code, which has no name field (_rec_name = "display")
• The ID validation regex check now correctly shows a ValidationError with the ID type label instead of crashing

Test plan

• Create an spp.registry.id record with an ID type that has id_validation set and provide a value that doesn't match the regex — should show a clean validation error with the ID type name
• Verify existing flows that create registry IDs with valid values still work normally

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a critical bug in the spp.registry.id module where an AttributeError would occur during ID validation. By switching the field used to retrieve the ID type's label from name to display, the system now gracefully handles invalid ID inputs, providing clear and informative validation errors to the user instead of crashing.

Highlights

• Bug Fix: Resolved an AttributeError in the spp.registry.id validation constraint by correcting the field accessed from .name to .display.
• Improved Error Handling: Ensured that ID validation regex checks now correctly display a ValidationError with the appropriate ID type label, preventing application crashes.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes an AttributeError in the registrant ID validation by using the display field instead of the non-existent name field on the spp.vocabulary.code model. The change is correct and resolves the described bug. I have also added a comment regarding a potential improvement to the validation trigger logic for better robustness.

[gemini-code-assist]

While this change to use rec.id_type_id.display is correct, the validation method it belongs to has a potential weakness. The _onchange_id_validation method is only triggered when the value field changes, but the validation logic also depends on id_type_id. This means that if id_type_id is changed, the validation for the existing value is not re-evaluated in the UI. This could be improved by also triggering the validation on id_type_id changes.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 70.32%. Comparing base (1a91296) to head (e101a68).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on 19.0.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             19.0     #117      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.14%   70.32%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files         739      756      +17     
  Lines       43997    44863     +866     
==========================================
+ Hits        30863    31549     +686     
- Misses      13134    13314     +180     

Flag	Coverage Δ
spp_analytics	93.13% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2	79.96% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_change_request	66.66% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_cycles	71.12% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_data	64.41% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_entitlements	70.19% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_gis	71.52% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_products	66.27% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_service_points	70.94% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_simulation	71.12% <ø> (ø)
spp_api_v2_vocabulary	57.26% <ø> (ø)
spp_approval	50.29% <ø> (ø)
spp_area	79.26% <ø> (?)
spp_area_hdx	81.43% <ø> (ø)
spp_audit	64.19% <ø> (ø)
spp_banking	80.00% <ø> (?)
spp_base_common	90.26% <ø> (ø)
spp_base_setting	50.00% <ø> (?)
spp_programs	45.51% <ø> (ø)
spp_security	66.66% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 17 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.