Expand the only_open_task_of_type validation to AttorneyTask and JudgeDecisionReviewTask #16586
Conversation
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 2a0d120 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. View more on Code Climate. |
eileen-nava
changed the title
eileen-nava
changed the title
|
Via slack, Yoom had encouraged me to answer the below question on my own:
My understanding is that when a judge completes a |
|
@yoomlam PR ready for review. TY! |
|
|
||
| private | ||
|
|
||
| def only_open_task_of_type |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This felt odd even as I typed it, but it was necessary to maintain the docket switch flow. Maybe we should check with the board that we want to allow multiple DocketSwitchDeniedTask and DocketSwitchGrantedTask instances for one appeal?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@eileen-nava Yes, check with Foxtrot and @araposo-tistatech first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ann-Marie directed me to Foxtrot. Slack response from Yang:
I believe there should only ever be two open DocketSwitchAbstractAttorneyTasks on an appeal, parent assigned to COTB and child assigned to a user.
Yang also noted that @jcq created this task tree structure. I'll check with JC about this when he is back from PTO.
For now, overriding the validation seems fine.
| expect(page).to have_content("Looks like this appeal already has an open JudgeDecisionReviewTask "\ | ||
| "and this action cannot be completed.") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's change this error message to:
| expect(page).to have_content("Looks like this appeal already has an open JudgeDecisionReviewTask "\ | |
| "and this action cannot be completed.") | |
| expect(page).to have_content("This appeal already has an open JudgeDecisionReviewTask "\ | |
| "and this action cannot be completed.") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current error message was suggested by design in a slack conversation with @mbaenatan and @rutvigupta-design. I'd appreciate their thoughts on any changes.
spec/models/appeal_spec.rb
Outdated
| @@ -919,7 +935,7 @@ | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| it "should know the right assigned attorney with a cancelled task" do | |||
| task2.update(status: "cancelled") | |||
| appeal.tasks.open.of_type("AttorneyTask").last.update!(status: Constants.TASK_STATUSES.cancelled) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| appeal.tasks.open.of_type("AttorneyTask").last.update!(status: Constants.TASK_STATUSES.cancelled) | |
| task2.cancelled! |
|
Related feature test: PR #16582 |
eileen-nava
added
the
Ready-to-Merge
Resolves jira ticket Research and prevent recurrence of bug where one case has multiple JudgeAssignTasks, JudgeDecisionReviewTasks, and AttorneyTasks .
Relates to github PR Write feature test to replicate scenario with multiple Judge/Attorney tasks.
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.
The
JudgeAssignTaskmodel already had a validation to ensure that an appeal cannot have more than oneJudgeAssignTaskopen at the same time. I expanded this validation to theJudgeDecisionReviewTaskandAttorneyTaskmodels. I also refactored the validation to use instance variables instead of thread-local variables, as suggested in this StackOverflow post that Yoom linked in a previous thread.Acceptance Criteria
JudgeAssignTaskin two different windows, they will not be able to create multipleJudgeDecisionReviewTasks andAttorneyTasks.Testing Plan
[ ] Find an appeal with an open
JudgeAssignTask[ ] On local caseflow, switch users to the judge who has the
JudgeAssignTaskassigned 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
JudgeAssignTaskto another judge[ ] In the second tab, attempt to complete the
JudgeAssignTaskby assigning the case to an attorney. You should not be able to complete this action