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-21393 Integration Follow Up #14204

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Nov 25, 2024
Merged

B-21393 Integration Follow Up #14204

merged 17 commits into from
Nov 25, 2024

Conversation

ajlusk
Copy link
Contributor

@ajlusk ajlusk commented Nov 15, 2024

B-21393

Part 1

Summary

Update the allowable weight field on the PPM shipment to be used when calculating all PPM closeout values when the allowable weight is less than the net weight.

In this PR for this backlog:

  • Updated the ppm_closeout and ppm_estimator services to use the shipment's allowable weight if that is less that the net weight.
  • Removed unused and untested UI component for the SC to edit the net weight of a shipment (became unused in B-18163)
  • Updated some test shipments that have been submitted for closeout to populate the allowable weight field.
  • Fixed some pre-existing copy & paste issues and typos.

In the Part 1 PR for this backlog:

  • Moved the allowable weight column from weight_tickets to ppm_shipments to that there is one consolidated allowable weight per shipment rather than one per trip.
  • The initial allowable weight is now calculated when the customer submits their PPM for closeout rather than in the UI as the SC opens each weight ticket.
  • The new allowable weight is editable by the SC when reviewing weight tickets.
  • New allowable weight field is used to calculate GCC rather than the sum of the allowable weights of the shipment's weight tickets

Verification Steps for the Author

These are to be checked by the author.

  • Tested in the Experimental environment (for changes to containers, app startup, or connection to data stores)
  • Have the Agility acceptance criteria been met for this change?

Verification Steps for Reviewers

These are to be checked by a reviewer.

  • Has the branch been pulled in and checked out?
  • Have the BL acceptance criteria been met for this change?
  • Was the CircleCI build successful?
  • Has the code been reviewed from a standards and best practices point of view?

Setup to Run the Code

How to test

To recreate the real-world scenario where these changes will be used, we'll be creating two PPMs whose total weight will exceed the service members weight allowance. On the second PPM the counselor will set the allowable weight so that Shipment1.NetWeight + Shipment2.AllowableWeight <= ServiceMember.WeightAllowance. Feel free to use slightly different values that those listed below as long as you end up in the same scenario. The values below are arbitrary.

  1. Access the customer app, create an Air Force service member (branch probably shouldn't matter).
  2. Use JB Charleston, SC 29404 as your current location.
  3. Use Scott AFB, IL 62225 as your new location.
  4. Select O-4 as your pay grade, save.
  5. Click on set up your shipments.
  6. You should have a weight allowance of 14,000lbs.
  7. Create a new move with at least two PPMs. Both should have a origin zip of 29404 and a destination zip of 62225.
  8. This shouldn't matter but I set my estimated weights to 7,000lbs each.
  9. Submit both moves.
  10. Login as a Services Counselor (AGFM) and approve the move.
  11. Log back in as your original customer and upload weight tickets for both shipments. At least one of the shipments should have two weight tickets to verify the weights are consolidated accurately. I set one shipment to a net weight of 7,000lbs and the other to 8,000lbs. Submit both for closeout.
  12. Log back in as a Services Counselor and review the documents for the 7,000lbs shipment. Approve the weight ticket(s). Take note (a screenshot) of of the Incentives/Costs and Incentive Factors values. Approve the shipment.
  13. Review the documents for the 8,000lbs shipment. The default allowable weight should be 8,000lbs (the net weight). Set it to 7,000lbs (so the total across both shipments does not exceed the service members weight allowance).
  14. Approve the weight ticket(s). Take note (a screenshot) of of the Incentives/Costs and Incentive Factors values.
  15. The values for both the 7,000lbs shipment and the 8,000lb shipment with a 7,000lbs allowable weight should be the same.

Optionally repeat theses steps on the latest main to verify the values you see are the same for a 8,000 and 7,000lbs shipments of the same distance on the same days.

To be added:
Screenshots of the values for identical shipment created in main to compare.

No UI changes in this follow up so no ANDI review will be necessary.

Frontend

  • There are no aXe warnings for UI.
  • This works in Supported Browsers and their phone views (Chrome, Firefox, Edge).
  • There are no new console errors in the browser devtools.
  • There are no new console errors in the test output.
  • If this PR adds a new component to Storybook, it ensures the component is fully responsive, OR if it is intentionally not, a wrapping div using the officeApp class or custom min-width styling is used to hide any states the would not be visible to the user.
  • This change meets the standards for Section 508 compliance.

Backend

Database

Any new migrations/schema changes:

  • Follows our guidelines for Zero-Downtime Deploys.
  • Have been communicated to #g-database.
  • Secure migrations have been tested following the instructions in our docs.

Screenshots

@ajlusk ajlusk added Scrummy Bears Scrum Team H INTEGRATION Slated for Integration Testing labels Nov 15, 2024
@ajlusk ajlusk self-assigned this Nov 15, 2024
@ajlusk ajlusk marked this pull request as ready for review November 18, 2024 18:46
@transcom transcom deleted a comment from robot-mymove Nov 19, 2024
@robot-mymove
Copy link

robot-mymove commented Nov 19, 2024

Warnings
⚠️ This PR does not include changes to unit tests, even though it affects app code.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against f72a3a7

Copy link
Contributor

@r-mettler r-mettler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good to me, local tests passed

Copy link
Contributor

@CoryKleinjanCACI CoryKleinjanCACI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes look good and tests pass.

@ajlusk ajlusk merged commit 56f77b1 into integrationTesting Nov 25, 2024
30 checks passed
@ajlusk ajlusk deleted the B-21393V2-Integration branch November 25, 2024 14:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
INTEGRATION Slated for Integration Testing Scrummy Bears Scrum Team H
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants