Teacher Application: Fixup old applications with new "Pay fee" question changes

[islemaster]

In #27203 I changed the possible answers to a teacher application question. I failed to consider that these changes would make existing application records invalid, and did not know that we depend on the ability to update these records later, after the principal approves them. We learned about the issue through this Honeybadger error.

The possible answers to that question changed like this:

Before	After
Yes, my school or I will be able to pay the full program fee.	Yes, my school will be able to pay the full program fee.
No, my school or I will not be able to pay the program fee. I would like to be considered for a scholarship.	No, my school will not be able to pay the program fee. I would like to be considered for a scholarship.
Not applicable: there is no program fee for teachers in my region.	Removed
Not applicable: there is no Regional Partner in my region.	Removed
I don't know.	I don't know.

Our fix for this issue has two parts:

1. Backfill script
   We are running a script to update previous teacher applications so that their answers match the new set of available answers.
   • For the first two answers, where we simply removed the "or I" from the answer, we are updating the answer text (and assuming the basic meaning of the answer is the same).

• For the removed answers, we are simply clearing the field rather than try to coerce to one of the first two answers and risk answering incorrectly on behalf of a teacher.

2. Question no longer required on the server
   Because the above backfill leaves some applications with no answer to a conditionally-required question, we are removing the required-ness of this question on the server to bring all applications back into a valid state. The question is still required on the client for new applications.

This PR includes a script for (1) and the code changes for (2). We'll ship them together and then manually run the script on production.

[islemaster]

This second clause is a mistake! Wrong text. I will fix.

[clareconstantine]

small thing: form.rb has a method called update_form_data_hash

[islemaster]

Updated!

[hacodeorg]

I don't have any comment on the code, it looks good. However, going back to update previous answers feels uneasy. Once something is written down it shouldn't be changed. It could be appended though. I don't have a concrete idea how to satisfy all the following requirements yet: 1) be flexible in changing questions+answers; 2) do not change historical data; and 3) be simple and do not over-engineering.

[islemaster]

I totally agree @hacodeorg - I think it's a broader conversation than this immediate need. It would be nice to have a formal way to "version" applications to handle changes like this. We've also discussed not wanting to create a new model for the application every year, even though we have a lot of question changes. I think it's a little late to rethink our approach for this year's application, but for next year (building out probably August-September) let's reconsider how we handle changes like this 👍 .