got rid of users[0].attorney[0].name.first on review and used target_…

[tobyfey]

…number to define counsel_retained

Terry emailed about a bug -

We assisted a pro se today at court. Pro se was [email protected]

She got through 90% of the interview (for Rent and Possession Answer & ADs, Motion for Leave, and Discovery), reviewed her answers, and we reached a page asking for "the date tenant hired you" or similar...as if an attorney was completing the interview, not a pro se.

There was no way around this page. She couldn't complete documents, and couldn't go back to fix it. I added a message on the comment bubble of that page, it should be in your logs.

Bottom line: interview broke completely, and we don't know why.

Is there any chance you can figure this out in time for this lady to complete her documents?  


We never developed anything for attorneys to use the tool. Why was that last question even part of the interview? 

Because a motion to shorten time was appropriate, the interview tried to define counsel_retained, which was conditioned on users[0].attorney.there_are_any. However, users[0].attorney uses .target_number. I changed this condition of counsel_retained to the target_number (which will make it more likely the client can complete the interview from her saved answers).

There was an additional problem - the review block was setting users[0].attorney.there_are_any to true. I removed the edit field in the review block for users[0].attorney[0].name.first. I think we should use a table, but I just left it out for now, since Terry wants to prioritize getting the issue fixed for the client.

In this PR, I have:

• Manually tested to ensure my PR is working
• Ensured issues that this PR closes will be automatically closed
• Requested review from Mia or Quinten
• Ensured automated tests are passing
• Updated automated tests so they are now passing
• There were no automated tests on this repo so I filled out this interview and there is now an "it runs" test

[nonprofittechy]

Maybe better: if users[0].attorney.number_gathered() == 0
but if this works, no problem

[tobyfey]

Yes, I think this would be better, but I was afraid it wouldn't work for this tenant's saved interview - because of the problem with the review screen, there is an a users[0].attorney[0], but users[0].attorney.target_number was still set to 0. But maybe we should change it after we hear this tenant finishes her interview.

[tobyfey]

Should I make an issue?