Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

angela-tran · 2025-02-13T03:10:38Z

This PR implements the functionality where, when verifying eligibility in-person, the user must agree they have used the specific eligibility criteria that is shown.

Screen recordings of behavior

(GIFs play only once. You can refresh the page to replay I think.)

User-facing behavior (for transit agency staff user)

Checkbox changes based on selected flow

Checkbox resets if user changes selected flow

Browser validation messages

User-facing behavior (for superusers and Cal-ITP staff users)

We currently only have in-person policies for the Older Adult, Medicare Cardholder, and Courtesy Card flows, so any other flows that were marked as supporting In-person enrollment will be automatically updated to have that option unchecked.
When attempting to add In-person as a supported enrollment method, that will only work for the three flows mentioned above. For any other flows, an error message will be shown:

Error message when attempting to add `In-person` to a flow without a policy

Testing locally

Data migration

Start on main branch, load sample fixtures with ./bin/reset_db.sh
- Launch app, go to /admin, and log in as cst-user. At /in_person/eligibility, you'll see the 5 in-person flows for CST.
- Log out and log back in as a superuser. Look over your EnrollmentFlows and notice the In-person checkbox is checked.
Checkout this branch (git checkout feat/in-person-policies) and run the migration with ./bin/init.sh
- Launch app, go to /admin, and log in as cst-user. At /in_person/eligibility, you'll see only "Older Adult" and "Medicare Cardholder".
- Log out and log back in as a superuser. Looking at the EnrollmentFlows, only the "Older Adult" and "Medicare Cardholder" flows have In-person checked.

`EnrollmentFlow` validation enforces that in-person flows have a policy

Try to check In-person for a flow and save it. If it is not one of the flows with an in-person eligibility policy, you will get an error message.

a11y

I tested going through the form with only keyboard interaction, and the tab order / interactions worked as I expected.

I also inspected the accessibility tree and observed that when the checkboxes go from hidden to shown, the accessibility tree makes sense, i.e. it only shows the checkbox that is currently displayed.

github-actions · 2025-02-13T03:22:15Z

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
benefits/core/models
enrollment.py
benefits/in_person
forms.py
benefits/in_person/context
__init__.py
eligibility.py
Project Total

_{This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action}

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py

benefits/in_person/context.py

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py

angela-tran · 2025-02-25T22:25:39Z

Ready for review again

lalver1

I went through the code and tested locally and everything looked good, this is a really nice new feature! 👍

This is only a note, that Nevada County Connects is set up in test with 2 in-person flows (disability and youth) with no policy_details yet. Seems like the migration in this PR will reset these to digital so we just need to remember to reconfigure these 2 flows and add policy_details to them after we do an rc release. If this makes sense, I can create a ticket for this chore.

thekaveman · 2025-02-25T23:24:48Z

~~@lalver1 good call! Want to update this ticket? #2553~~

indexing · 2025-02-25T23:38:52Z

@lalver1 Quick note: we don't have policy_details for either disability or youth yet; those won't be pathways we offer NevCo with the initial release of in-person enrollments.

thekaveman · 2025-02-25T23:46:10Z

@indexing @lalver1

Ah, so it must have been used by us testing the interface. In any case, sounds like there is nothing to do here at all 👍

the mocked agency used by the test did not have any flows, and the test was passing as a false positive. use the `mocked_session_flow` fixture so that the agency has a flow. this is similar to the fix in 3bf128c.

change the form to have a checkbox for each flow. when the user selects the radio button for a flow, the corresponding checkbox is shown, and the other checkboxes are hidden. implement a template specifically for this form.

also fix spelling typo on copy for checkboxes.

previously we could rely on Django's default handling of the single `BooleanField`, but since we have multiple checkboxes now, and we don't want to require all of them, we need to implement our own logic to require that the checkbox that matches the selected flow was checked. also added Javascript to the template to show the checkbox for the case where the form didn't pass back-end validation and therefore we show the form again with what the user had selected.

consumer is responsible for handling any error that might occur from the key not being found.

data migration handles removing "in_person" from flows that do not have a policy in the `in_person.context.eligibility_index` dict. `EnrollmentFlow.clean` handles enforcing this rule going forward when creating or editing flows.

angela-tran · 2025-02-26T19:00:30Z

After rebasing onto main which has had #2688 merged into it:

angela-tran · 2025-02-26T19:26:48Z

Seems like the migration in this PR will reset these to digital ...

The migration only removes in_person from flows and does not try to set any flow to digital.

thekaveman

One minor change: the local_fixtures.json should be updated so that when starting from scratch (e.g. no database, like a fresh local environment), we don't load flows marked for in-person that aren't in the context.

This happens after the database migration here, so they are loaded in an invalid state.

a flow that does not have an in-person policy (as mapped by `in_person.context.eligibility_index`) is not allowed to support the `in_person` enrollment method.

angela-tran · 2025-02-26T23:27:57Z

One minor change: the local_fixtures.json should be updated so that when starting from scratch (e.g. no database, like a fresh local environment), we don't load flows marked for in-person that aren't in the context.

This happens after the database migration here, so they are loaded in an invalid state.

Thanks for catching that! Updated them in 98ef80a

thekaveman · 2025-02-26T23:32:37Z

Thanks for catching that!

NP. ~~But I guess I also didn't realize, we aren't supporting Agency Card here for CST? Would we want that for testing/demoing?~~

Forget it.

thekaveman

🪪 🔍

✅

angela-tran self-assigned this Feb 13, 2025

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

benefits/in_person/context.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch 5 times, most recently from 18443be to 0ec5b92 Compare February 19, 2025 01:56

This was referenced Feb 20, 2025

Chore: run pre-commit on all files #2696

Merged

Refactor: choices for EnrollmentFlow.system_name #2698

Merged

Admin: In-Person - View policy #2632

Closed

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch 8 times, most recently from 1f8f25e to d27a53e Compare February 21, 2025 21:10

angela-tran marked this pull request as ready for review February 21, 2025 22:07

angela-tran requested a review from a team as a code owner February 21, 2025 22:07

angela-tran commented Feb 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py Show resolved Hide resolved

angela-tran commented Feb 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

thekaveman mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2025

Admin: Front-end for Flow pages #2688

Merged

lalver1 previously approved these changes Feb 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

angela-tran added 11 commits February 26, 2025 18:51

fix(test): fix set up for an in-person eligibility form test

d0abe68

the mocked agency used by the test did not have any flows, and the test was passing as a false positive. use the `mocked_session_flow` fixture so that the agency has a flow. this is similar to the fix in 3bf128c.

feat: add field to EnrollmentFlow for in-person eligibility context

d203b61

refactor(style): use d-none class rather than inline style

95aa731

refactor(template): avoid duplication of HTML for form group

36d975e

feat: update custom-validity messages for form input fields

cdfbacc

also fix spelling typo on copy for checkboxes.

refactor: have the model property look up the context non-defensively

d674cc0

consumer is responsible for handling any error that might occur from the key not being found.

refactor(context): use package structure for consistency

c67a1cb

refactor(copy): reword error message when in-person context is not found

147e258

angela-tran dismissed lalver1’s stale review via 147e258 February 26, 2025 18:59

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch from 5a78acc to 147e258 Compare February 26, 2025 18:59

angela-tran requested review from thekaveman and lalver1 February 26, 2025 19:00

thekaveman requested changes Feb 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

refactor: update sample fixtures so they follow our business logic

98ef80a

a flow that does not have an in-person policy (as mapped by `in_person.context.eligibility_index`) is not allowed to support the `in_person` enrollment method.

thekaveman approved these changes Feb 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

angela-tran merged commit 5a452c0 into main Feb 26, 2025
12 checks passed

angela-tran deleted the feat/in-person-policies branch February 26, 2025 23:46

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angela-tran commented Feb 25, 2025

lalver1 left a comment

thekaveman commented Feb 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

indexing commented Feb 25, 2025

thekaveman commented Feb 25, 2025

angela-tran commented Feb 26, 2025

angela-tran commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thekaveman left a comment

angela-tran commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thekaveman commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thekaveman left a comment

Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

Conversation

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025 • edited Loading

Screen recordings of behavior

User-facing behavior (for transit agency staff user)

User-facing behavior (for superusers and Cal-ITP staff users)

Testing locally

Data migration

EnrollmentFlow validation enforces that in-person flows have a policy

a11y

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2025 • edited Loading

Coverage report

angela-tran commented Feb 25, 2025

lalver1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thekaveman commented Feb 25, 2025 • edited Loading

indexing commented Feb 25, 2025

thekaveman commented Feb 25, 2025

angela-tran commented Feb 26, 2025

angela-tran commented Feb 26, 2025 • edited Loading

thekaveman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

angela-tran commented Feb 26, 2025 • edited Loading

thekaveman commented Feb 26, 2025 • edited Loading

thekaveman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

`EnrollmentFlow` validation enforces that in-person flows have a policy

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thekaveman commented Feb 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angela-tran commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angela-tran commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thekaveman commented Feb 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading