Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

B-22778 INT: Primary/Secondary GBLOCs for TOO Destination Queue #14951

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: integrationTesting
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

traskowskycaci
Copy link
Contributor

@traskowskycaci traskowskycaci commented Mar 4, 2025

Agility ticket

Summary

Needed to add the primary/secondary GBLOC functionality to the destination queue.

How to test

  1. Access the admin app

  2. Make an office user with the TOO role with a primary and secondary GBLOC

  3. Login as a customer

  4. Make a move with zips in the primary GBLOC

  5. Make a move with zips in the secondary GBLOC (postal_code_to_gblocs if you're unsure)

  6. Log in as the office user you just created via the admin app
    7.Counsel and approve both as the TOO

  7. Add destination requests to both (destination SIT, destination shuttle, destination address request, pick your poison)

  8. Go back to the TOO queue. You should be able to click on the GBLOC at the top of the page and toggle between primary and secondary

  9. Go to the destination queue as the TOO

  10. Toggle between primary and secondary GBLOCs, and ensure that you do not see the same moves when toggling back and forth. You should see the expected moves in the primary GBLOC and see the expected moves in the secondary GBLOC

  11. Make sure you export to CSV and verify that you see the correct, distinct results for each GBLOC:
    image

  12. Run go test ./pkg/services/order

Primary GBLOC of KKFA:
image

Secondary GBLOC of AGFM:
image

@traskowskycaci traskowskycaci self-assigned this Mar 4, 2025
@traskowskycaci traskowskycaci added Mountain Movers Movin' Mountains 1 Sprint at a time INTEGRATION Slated for Integration Testing labels Mar 4, 2025
@traskowskycaci traskowskycaci marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2025 21:34
@traskowskycaci traskowskycaci requested a review from a team as a code owner March 4, 2025 21:34
Copy link
Contributor

@danieljordan-caci danieljordan-caci left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great! Also fixes the broken export so that can be marked OBE (probably) if @msaki-caci wants to verify
Screenshot 2025-03-04 at 3 55 14 PM

Screenshot 2025-03-04 at 3 55 05 PM

@traskowskycaci
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks great! Also fixes the broken export so that can be marked OBE (probably) if @msaki-caci wants to verify !

Thanks for testing!

Is there a separate BL for the export? Agree it can probably be marked OBE since it was covered in the AC on this ticket, unless @msaki-caci's BL has more AC beyond what's on this

@danieljordan-caci
Copy link
Contributor

Looks great! Also fixes the broken export so that can be marked OBE (probably) if @msaki-caci wants to verify !

Thanks for testing!

Is there a separate BL for the export? Agree it can probably be marked OBE since it was covered in the AC on this ticket, unless @msaki-caci's BL has more AC beyond what's on this

B-21969

@traskowskycaci
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks great! Also fixes the broken export so that can be marked OBE (probably) if @msaki-caci wants to verify !

Thanks for testing!
Is there a separate BL for the export? Agree it can probably be marked OBE since it was covered in the AC on this ticket, unless @msaki-caci's BL has more AC beyond what's on this

B-21969

Ah that one is in integration already so probably can't mark it as OBE and also doesn't hurt to have it around for testing!

@danieljordan-caci
Copy link
Contributor

Looks great! Also fixes the broken export so that can be marked OBE (probably) if @msaki-caci wants to verify !

Thanks for testing!
Is there a separate BL for the export? Agree it can probably be marked OBE since it was covered in the AC on this ticket, unless @msaki-caci's BL has more AC beyond what's on this

B-21969

Ah that one is in integration already so probably can't mark it as OBE and also doesn't hurt to have it around for testing!

Maybe OBE isn't the right word, but they can no longer have the testing blocker once this is merged. My b.

@traskowskycaci
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks great! Also fixes the broken export so that can be marked OBE (probably) if @msaki-caci wants to verify !

Thanks for testing!
Is there a separate BL for the export? Agree it can probably be marked OBE since it was covered in the AC on this ticket, unless @msaki-caci's BL has more AC beyond what's on this

B-21969

Ah that one is in integration already so probably can't mark it as OBE and also doesn't hurt to have it around for testing!

Maybe OBE isn't the right word, but they can no longer have the testing blocker once this is merged. My b.

Sounds good! Thanks for letting me know that BL was a thing. Adding @msaki-caci to this PR too

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
INTEGRATION Slated for Integration Testing Mountain Movers Movin' Mountains 1 Sprint at a time
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants