Write feature test to replicate scenario with where user modifies JudgeAssignTask in multiple tabs #16582

eileen-nava · 2021-08-03T18:07:27Z

Description

The purpose of this PR was to replicate the scenario where a user creates multiple Judge and Attorney tasks by doing the same actions in two different tabs, as described in this comment from Yoom. The user's actions cause a JudgeAssignTask to change status from cancelled to completed, which is an invalid flow.

(The below section is no longer relevant because JC and Yoom answered my question, but I am including it for posterity's edification.)
I was unable to completely replicate the scenario, because I couldn't figure out how to select "Assign an attorney" when there were two dropdowns on the page with this option. Here is the error that the test currently throws.

Failures:

  1) duplicate JudgeAssignTask investigation Judge reassigns JudgeAssignTask in first tab and complete task in second tab Caseflow creates multiple JudgeDecisionReview and JudgeAssign tasks
     Failure/Error: container.find(selector, **keyword_args)
     
     Capybara::Ambiguous:
       Ambiguous match, found 2 elements matching visible css ".cf-select__control"
     # ./spec/support/feature_helper.rb:120:in `find_dropdown'
     # ./spec/support/feature_helper.rb:24:in `click_dropdown'
     # ./spec/fixes/investigate_duplicate_judge_tasks_spec.rb:61:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>'
     # ./spec/fixes/investigate_duplicate_judge_tasks_spec.rb:46:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'

Finished in 37.65 seconds (files took 9.74 seconds to load)
1 example, 1 failure

Failed examples:

rspec ./spec/fixes/investigate_duplicate_judge_tasks_spec.rb:24 # duplicate JudgeAssignTask investigation Judge reassigns JudgeAssignTask in first tab and complete task in second tab Caseflow creates multiple JudgeDecisionReview and JudgeAssign tasks

I tried to open the test in a local browser and then select the "Assign an attorney" option based on its css selector, which is how I had selected the dropdown itself. However, the dev tools did not display the css selectors for the task action options.... I am unsure why.

~~Guidance on how to select the task option would be appreciated, please!~~

Acceptance Criteria

Test replicates the scenario where the user opens multiple tabs and causes a JudgeAssignTask to change status from cancelled to completed

Testing Plan

Run the test

codeclimate · 2021-08-03T18:14:41Z

Code Climate has analyzed commit 3561be1 and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

View more on Code Climate.

jcq · 2021-08-03T19:05:32Z

spec/fixes/investigate_duplicate_judge_tasks_spec.rb

+        # below correctly selects the second task action dropdown
+        find("#currently-active-tasks > div:nth-child(4) > table > tbody > tr:nth-child(3) > td.taskContainerStyling.taskActionsContainerStyling > div > div > div > div > div > div").click
+        # below - could not successfully select the "assign to attorney" dropdown because there were two dropdowns with this option
+        click_dropdown(text: "Assign to attorney")


You should be able to scope it by specifying the container (second argument, after the options hash):

assign_task_row = find("#currently-active-tasks > div:nth-child(4) > table > tbody > tr:nth-child(3)") click_dropdown({text: "Assign to attorney"}, assign_task_row)

I like assign_task_row = find("table[summary='layout table'] tr:nth-child(3)") a bit better.

…ed from virtual to video or central (#16600) Connects [CASEFLOW-1556](https://vajira.max.gov/browse/CASEFLOW-1556) ### Description Read [thread](https://dsva.slack.com/archives/C01MBDKAC7P/p1628282082046700?thread_ts=1628004392.010800&cid=C01MBDKAC7P) on why this only implements the copy changes for when virtual hearing is converted back to Video or Central. - modify email copy and subject when virtual hearing is converted back to video or central ### Acceptance Criteria - [x] When a scheduled hearing is converted from Virtual to Video or Central send an email with the following content to the appellant - [x] Subject: "Your Board hearing will be held at {Hearing Location or RO Name}" - [x] Replace the opening paragraph of the intro section with: "Your hearing with a Veterans Law Judge of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals has changed format. Instead of a virtual tele-hearing, you will go in person to {Hearing Location or RO name} and the Judge will meet with you {via video conference / in person}." - [x] Display the following sections underneath the salutation and intro - [x] Date and Time - [x] Location - [x] What should I expect on the day of my hearing? - [x] Signature - [x] Internal use - [x] When a scheduled hearing is converted from Virtual to Video or Central and a representative email has already been added to the hearing, send an email with the following content to the representative - [x] Subject: "{Full Appellant Name}’s hearing will be held at {Hearing Location or RO Name}" - [x] Replace the opening paragraph of the intro section with: "Your client's hearing with a Veterans Law Judge of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals has changed format. Instead of a virtual tele-hearing, you will go in person to {Hearing Location or RO name} and the Judge will meet with you {via video conference / in person}." - [x] Display the following sections underneath the salutation and intro - [x] Appellant name - [x] Case Details link - [x] Date and Time - [x] Location - [x] Signature - [x] Internal use ### Testing Plan ```bash bundle exec rake emails:hearings:sample Check the content of `cancellation_appellant.rb` and `cancellation_representative.rb` ```

* bug fix * move method call

Connects https://vajira.max.gov/browse/CASEFLOW-1034 ### Description User Story: As a VLJ Support Team user, I want the ability to indicate I want to edit an Appellant's information, so that I may correct any mistakes made during intake. ### Acceptance Criteria - [ ] Code compiles correctly ### Testing Plan 1. Go to ... - [ ] For higher-risk changes: [Deploy the custom branch to UAT to test](https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/appeals-deployment/wiki/Applications---Deploy-Custom-Branch-to-UAT) ### User Facing Changes <img width="1110" alt="Screen Shot 2021-08-10 at 9 34 02 AM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/23080951/128876347-299003b9-0671-4938-8d84-d4012c75553b.png">

yoomlam · 2021-08-11T13:58:09Z

spec/fixes/investigate_duplicate_judge_tasks_spec.rb

+        # app currently allows the invalid flow of a JudgeAssignTask going from cancelled to completed
+        expect(Task.find(first_judge_assign_task_id).status).to eq("completed")


Suggested change

# app currently allows the invalid flow of a JudgeAssignTask going from cancelled to completed

expect(Task.find(first_judge_assign_task_id).status).to eq("completed")

# BUG: app currently allows the invalid flow of a JudgeAssignTask going from cancelled to completed

expect(Task.find(first_judge_assign_task_id).status).to eq("completed")

pbradin · 2021-08-11T22:42:17Z

spec/fixes/investigate_duplicate_judge_tasks_spec.rb

+      appeal.reload.treee
+
+      # open a second window and visit case details page, window B
+      second_window = open_new_window


This is so cool and great to see! Very well-described too.

pbradin

Nice job Eileen!

eileen-nava · 2021-08-13T14:07:29Z

Update: I decided to merge this branch into eileen/2075-multiple-judge-tasks and then merge eileen/2075-multiple-judge-tasks into master. It seems simpler than having two separate PRs that are based off master.

…eDecisionReviewTask (#16586) Resolves jira ticket [Research and prevent recurrence of bug where one case has multiple JudgeAssignTasks, JudgeDecisionReviewTasks, and AttorneyTasks](https://vajira.max.gov/projects/CASEFLOW/issues/CASEFLOW-2075) . Relates to github PR [Write feature test to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks](#16582). ### Description A bug occurred in production where a user created multiple Judge and Attorney tasks by doing the same actions in two different tabs, as described in [this comment from Yoom](https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/dsva-vacols/issues/212#issuecomment-889401070). The `JudgeAssignTask` [model already had a validation ](#16072) to ensure that an appeal cannot have more than one `JudgeAssignTask` open at the same time. I expanded this validation to the `JudgeDecisionReviewTask` and `AttorneyTask` models. I also refactored the validation to use instance variables instead of thread-local variables, as suggested in [this StackOverflow post](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8881712/skip-certain-validation-method-in-model) that Yoom linked in a previous thread. ### Acceptance Criteria - [ ] Code compiles correctly - [ ] All automated tests pass - [ ] Task validations no longer use thread-local variables - [ ] If a user attempts to act on the same `JudgeAssignTask` in two different windows, they will not be able to create multiple `JudgeDecisionReviewTask`s and `AttorneyTask`s. ### Testing Plan [ ] Find an appeal with an open `JudgeAssignTask` ``` jat = JudgeAssignTask.open.last appeal = jat.appeal ``` [ ] On local caseflow, switch users to the judge who has the `JudgeAssignTask` assigned to them [ ] Navigate to the case details page for the relevant appeal. Open the same page in a second tab `/queue/appeals/${appeal.uuid}` [ ] In the first tab, reassign the `JudgeAssignTask` to another judge [ ] In the second tab, attempt to complete the `JudgeAssignTask` by assigning the case to an attorney. You should not be able to complete this action

eileen-nava added 3 commits July 30, 2021 12:19

wrong start - need to change task factory

bb875f5

test of invalid JudgeAssignTask status

2e11eb4

WIP - can't figure out how to select correct dropdown

a0e6eff

eileen-nava requested a review from yoomlam August 3, 2021 18:07

eileen-nava changed the title ~~Write feature to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks~~ Write feature test to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks Aug 3, 2021

eileen-nava changed the title ~~Write feature test to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks~~ WIP: Write feature test to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks Aug 3, 2021

jcq reviewed Aug 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

spec fixed

bc92b17

eileen-nava mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2021

Expand the only_open_task_of_type validation to AttorneyTask and JudgeDecisionReviewTask #16586

Merged

4 tasks

debug spec to actually reassign judge task to a different judge

3fc0fb9

eileen-nava changed the title ~~WIP: Write feature test to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks~~ Write feature test to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks Aug 10, 2021

Rubaiyat Rashid and others added 5 commits August 10, 2021 11:10

Board Grant Effectuation Bug Fix (#16609)

7a04b3a

* bug fix * move method call

add wait statements

e7288b3

Merge branch 'master' into eileen/2075-multiple-judge-tasks

3561be1

eileen-nava changed the title ~~Write feature test to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks~~ Write feature test to replicate scenario with where user modifies JudgeAssignTask in multiple tabs Aug 11, 2021

yoomlam reviewed Aug 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

pbradin reviewed Aug 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

pbradin approved these changes Aug 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

eileen-nava changed the base branch from master to 2075/limit-jdr-atty-tasks August 13, 2021 14:05

eileen-nava merged commit 3561be1 into 2075/limit-jdr-atty-tasks Aug 13, 2021

eileen-nava deleted the eileen/2075-multiple-judge-tasks branch September 13, 2021 21:47

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Write feature test to replicate scenario with where user modifies JudgeAssignTask in multiple tabs #16582

Write feature test to replicate scenario with where user modifies JudgeAssignTask in multiple tabs #16582

eileen-nava commented Aug 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

codeclimate bot commented Aug 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jcq Aug 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

yoomlam Aug 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

yoomlam Aug 11, 2021

pbradin Aug 11, 2021

pbradin left a comment

eileen-nava commented Aug 13, 2021 •

edited

Loading

		# app currently allows the invalid flow of a JudgeAssignTask going from cancelled to completed
		expect(Task.find(first_judge_assign_task_id).status).to eq("completed")

Write feature test to replicate scenario with where user modifies JudgeAssignTask in multiple tabs #16582

Write feature test to replicate scenario with where user modifies JudgeAssignTask in multiple tabs #16582

Conversation

eileen-nava commented Aug 3, 2021 • edited Loading

Description

Acceptance Criteria

Testing Plan

codeclimate bot commented Aug 3, 2021 • edited Loading

jcq Aug 3, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yoomlam Aug 3, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yoomlam Aug 11, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pbradin Aug 11, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pbradin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eileen-nava commented Aug 13, 2021 • edited Loading

eileen-nava commented Aug 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

codeclimate bot commented Aug 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jcq Aug 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

yoomlam Aug 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

eileen-nava commented Aug 13, 2021 •

edited

Loading