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

19343 Add not in good standing blocker to amalgamations #2402

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 22, 2024

Conversation

leodube-aot
Copy link
Collaborator

Issue #: /bcgov/entity#19343

Description of changes:

  • Add not in good standing blocker to amalgamations

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of the lear license (Apache 2.0).

@leodube-aot leodube-aot self-assigned this Jan 22, 2024
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Jan 22, 2024

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Kudos, no new issues were introduced!

0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
100.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 22, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 277 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (79511cd) 77.37% compared to head (a0bdbcf) 76.62%.
Report is 73 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2402      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.37%   76.62%   -0.76%     
==========================================
  Files         202      168      -34     
  Lines       11602    10548    -1054     
  Branches     1961     1794     -167     
==========================================
- Hits         8977     8082     -895     
+ Misses       2043     1978      -65     
+ Partials      582      488      -94     
Flag Coverage Δ
entityfiler ?
legalapi 76.62% <66.34%> (-0.22%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Coverage Δ
legal-api/src/legal_api/config.py 95.16% <100.00%> (+0.28%) ⬆️
legal-api/src/legal_api/core/filing.py 87.12% <100.00%> (+0.62%) ⬆️
legal-api/src/legal_api/core/filing_helper.py 50.00% <100.00%> (ø)
legal-api/src/legal_api/models/__init__.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...-api/src/legal_api/models/amalgamating_business.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
legal-api/src/legal_api/models/business.py 94.72% <100.00%> (+0.73%) ⬆️
legal-api/src/legal_api/models/dc_definition.py 90.69% <100.00%> (ø)
...l-api/src/legal_api/models/dc_revocation_reason.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
legal-api/src/legal_api/models/filing.py 92.41% <ø> (ø)
legal-api/src/legal_api/services/__init__.py 80.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 21 more

... and 43 files with indirect coverage changes

@argush3
Copy link
Collaborator

argush3 commented Jan 22, 2024

@leodube-aot can you verify with Mihai if a not in good standing check is really ok?

Not in good standing will cover a business in limited restoration but there are other conditions where a business is not in good standing.

Should all the other scenarios where a business is not in good standing block starting an amalgamation filing from a TING?

@leodube-aot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

leodube-aot commented Jan 22, 2024

@argush3 Sure thing, I'll ask Mihai and update here.

Edit: We are blocking all not in good standing scenarios.

@leodube-aot leodube-aot merged commit 0182441 into bcgov:main Jan 22, 2024
7 of 8 checks passed
JazzarKarim pushed a commit to JazzarKarim/lear that referenced this pull request Mar 7, 2024
JazzarKarim pushed a commit to JazzarKarim/lear that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2024
JazzarKarim pushed a commit to JazzarKarim/lear that referenced this pull request Mar 20, 2024
PaulGarewal pushed a commit to PaulGarewal/lear that referenced this pull request Mar 26, 2024
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.

None yet

3 participants