Pccm template backend #11490

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T14:24:38Z

Description

Related ticket(s)

CMDCT-3028

How to test

Important updates

Author checklist

I have performed a self-review of my code
I have added thorough tests, if necessary
I have updated relevant documentation, if necessary

convert to a different template: test → val | val → prod

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T19:07:51Z

services/app-api/handlers/formTemplates/populateTemplatesTable.ts

-export function getTemplateVersionByHash(reportType: ReportType, hash: string) {
-  const queryParams: QueryInput = {
-    TableName: process.env.FORM_TEMPLATE_TABLE_NAME!,
-    IndexName: "HashIndex",
-    KeyConditionExpression: "reportType = :reportType AND md5Hash = :md5Hash",
-    Limit: 1,
-    ExpressionAttributeValues: {
-      ":md5Hash": hash as AttributeValue,
-      ":reportType": reportType as unknown as AttributeValue,
-    },
-  };
-  return dynamodbLib.query(queryParams);
-}


moved this to formTemplate.ts

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T19:08:27Z

services/app-api/handlers/reports/create.ts

+  const isProgramPCCM =
+    unvalidatedMetadata?.programIsPCCM?.[0]?.value === "Yes";
+
  try {
    ({ formTemplate, formTemplateVersion } = await getOrCreateFormTemplate(
      reportBucket,
-      reportType
+      reportType,
+      isProgramPCCM


report create now checks for PCCM radio and generates a separate template if necessary – see below

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T19:09:09Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.test.ts

+const programIsPCCM = true;
+const programIsNotPCCM = false;
+
+global.structuredClone = (val: any) => JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(val));


test: had to mock structuredClone to its more primitive form because 🤷 I guess node environment isn't up to date enough to support it

info here

Well that's sad. Mocking it here for tests isn't too painful imo, but hopefully something we can remove later.

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T19:09:49Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.test.ts

+    mockDocumentClient.query.promise.mockReturnValueOnce({
+      Items: [],
+    });


test: added mocks to many tests because we now have two queries: one for matching hash, and one for latest version

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T19:10:40Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.ts

+  const matchingTemplateMetadata = await getTemplateVersionByHash(
+    reportType,
+    currentTemplateHash
+  );

-  if (currentTemplateHash === mostRecentTemplateVersionHash) {
+  if (matchingTemplateMetadata) {


we now identify if there is a matching template by hash rather than latest. This way if we alternate creating PCCM and MCPAR forms it won't create duplicates in the table because the hash will be the same

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T19:11:17Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.ts

+      versionNumber: newestTemplateMetadata?.versionNumber
+        ? (newestTemplateMetadata.versionNumber += 1)


we still version off of the latest for simplicity. So whether you create a MCPAR or a PCCM, if it's new it will get a +1 to the latest version and save in the same table/bucket

To be clear, since PCCM form template versions are stored with reportType = MCPAR, we will have MCPAR version 17 (say) be a full MCPAR, and MCPAR version 18 be PCCM, and MCPAR version 19 be a full MCPAR again (with some differences compared to v17, such that the hash no longer matches). The only way for a developer browsing the form template version table to know whether a given entry for the MCPAR reportType is PCCM will be for them to pull the form template from S3.

I don't anticipate ever needing or wanting to do so myself, so I have no problem with that.

I also am not sure that this comment adds any clarity. Um, sorry. The code is good though.

Thanks for clarifying, Ben! That helps.

Yes if we needed to find a PCCM template we could always look in the report table first, search for a report that selected "Yes" to PCCM, get the templateId from there, etc.

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T19:11:59Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.ts

+const routesToIncludeInPCCM = {
+  "A: Program Information": [
+    "Point of Contact",
+    "Reporting Period",
+    "Add Plans",
+  ],
+  "B: State-Level Indicators": ["I: Program Characteristics"],
+  "C: Program-Level Indicators": ["I: Program Characteristics"],
+  "D: Plan-Level Indicators": ["I: Program Characteristics", "VIII: Sanctions"],
+  "Review & Submit": [],
+} as { [key: string]: string[] };
+
+const entitiesToIncludeInPCCM = ["plans", "sanctions"];


routes to include from ticket

Section A: Program Information Point of Contact Reporting Period Add Plans Section B: State-Level Indicators Program Characteristics and Enrollment Section C: Program-Level Indicators Program Characteristics Section D: Plan-Level Indicators Program Characteristics and Enrollment Sanctions Review and Submit

entities inferred from same list

Comment: I think that, strictly speaking, the entity inference could have been done in code rather than hardcoding plans and sanctions in this array. But that code would have been terribly complicated compared to this one-line declaration, so I completely agree with your approach.

gmrabian · 2023-10-17T19:12:41Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.ts

+const entitiesToIncludeInPCCM = ["plans", "sanctions"];
+
+export const generatePCCMTemplate = (originalReportTemplate: any) => {
+  const reportTemplate = structuredClone(originalReportTemplate);


this structuredClone let's us copy the mcpar template without modifying it in memory, so that we can create MCPARs and PCCMs and they will always be based on the full MCPAR

benmartin-coforma

This is great work! My comments are all of the "idle musing" type.

benmartin-coforma · 2023-10-17T23:02:10Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.test.ts

+const programIsPCCM = true;
+const programIsNotPCCM = false;
+
+global.structuredClone = (val: any) => JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(val));


Well that's sad. Mocking it here for tests isn't too painful imo, but hopefully something we can remove later.

benmartin-coforma · 2023-10-17T23:05:31Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.ts

+      versionNumber: newestTemplateMetadata?.versionNumber
+        ? (newestTemplateMetadata.versionNumber += 1)


To be clear, since PCCM form template versions are stored with reportType = MCPAR, we will have MCPAR version 17 (say) be a full MCPAR, and MCPAR version 18 be PCCM, and MCPAR version 19 be a full MCPAR again (with some differences compared to v17, such that the hash no longer matches). The only way for a developer browsing the form template version table to know whether a given entry for the MCPAR reportType is PCCM will be for them to pull the form template from S3.

I don't anticipate ever needing or wanting to do so myself, so I have no problem with that.

I also am not sure that this comment adds any clarity. Um, sorry. The code is good though.

benmartin-coforma · 2023-10-17T23:07:45Z

services/app-api/utils/formTemplates/formTemplates.ts

+const routesToIncludeInPCCM = {
+  "A: Program Information": [
+    "Point of Contact",
+    "Reporting Period",
+    "Add Plans",
+  ],
+  "B: State-Level Indicators": ["I: Program Characteristics"],
+  "C: Program-Level Indicators": ["I: Program Characteristics"],
+  "D: Plan-Level Indicators": ["I: Program Characteristics", "VIII: Sanctions"],
+  "Review & Submit": [],
+} as { [key: string]: string[] };
+
+const entitiesToIncludeInPCCM = ["plans", "sanctions"];


Comment: I think that, strictly speaking, the entity inference could have been done in code rather than hardcoding plans and sanctions in this array. But that code would have been terribly complicated compared to this one-line declaration, so I completely agree with your approach.

gmrabian added 3 commits October 16, 2023 15:49

add pccm filtering

bef7179

remove unused import

18f8002

generate pccm template in backend

ee4c3d4

github-actions bot assigned gmrabian Oct 17, 2023

refactor to use hash; add tests

d319bfc

gmrabian changed the title ~~[WIP] - Pccm template backend (option 2)~~ [WIP] - Pccm template backend Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian commented Oct 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'add-pccm-radio-3027' into pccm-template-backend

219711d

gmrabian requested review from britt-mo, karla-vm and benmartin-coforma October 17, 2023 20:44

gmrabian added the ready for review Ready for all the reviews! label Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian changed the title ~~[WIP] - Pccm template backend~~ Pccm template backend Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2023 20:45

gmrabian requested review from BearHanded, braxex and cassandradanger as code owners October 17, 2023 20:45

benmartin-coforma approved these changes Oct 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

karla-vm approved these changes Oct 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

gmrabian merged commit 69297dc into add-pccm-radio-3027 Oct 18, 2023
9 checks passed

gmrabian deleted the pccm-template-backend branch October 18, 2023 16:25

gmrabian mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2023

Add PCCM radio to MCPAR dashboard create modal #11481

Merged

2 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Pccm template backend #11490

Pccm template backend #11490

gmrabian commented Oct 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

benmartin-coforma Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023

benmartin-coforma Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian Oct 18, 2023

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023

benmartin-coforma Oct 17, 2023

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023

benmartin-coforma left a comment

benmartin-coforma Oct 17, 2023

benmartin-coforma Oct 17, 2023

benmartin-coforma Oct 17, 2023

		versionNumber: newestTemplateMetadata?.versionNumber
		? (newestTemplateMetadata.versionNumber += 1)

Pccm template backend #11490

Pccm template backend #11490

Conversation

gmrabian commented Oct 17, 2023 • edited Loading

Description

Related ticket(s)

How to test

Important updates

Author checklist

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

benmartin-coforma left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gmrabian commented Oct 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

gmrabian Oct 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading