comment

[ryan-mcneil]

Note: Delete the description statements, complete each step. None are optional, but can be justified as to why they cannot be completed as written. Provide known gaps to testing that may raise the risk of merging to production.

Summary

• This work is behind a feature toggle (flipper): YES/NO
• (Summarize the changes that have been made to the platform)
• (If bug, how to reproduce)
• (What is the solution, why is this the solution?)
• (Which team do you work for, does your team own the maintenance of this component?)
• (If introducing a flipper, what is the success criteria being targeted?)

Related issue(s)

• Link to ticket created in va.gov-team repo OR screenshot of Jira ticket if your team uses Jira
• Link to previous change of the code/bug (if applicable)
• Link to epic if not included in ticket

Testing done

• New code is covered by unit tests
• Describe what the old behavior was prior to the change
• Describe the steps required to verify your changes are working as expected. Exclusively stating 'Specs run' is NOT acceptable as appropriate testing
• If this work is behind a flipper:
  • Tests need to be written for both the flipper on and flipper off scenarios. Docs.
  • What is the testing plan for rolling out the feature?

Screenshots

Note: Optional

What areas of the site does it impact?

(Describe what parts of the site are impacted andifcode touched other areas)

Acceptance criteria

• I fixed|updated|added unit tests and integration tests for each feature (if applicable).
• No error nor warning in the console.
• Events are being sent to the appropriate logging solution
• Documentation has been updated (link to documentation)
• No sensitive information (i.e. PII/credentials/internal URLs/etc.) is captured in logging, hardcoded, or specs
• Feature/bug has a monitor built into Datadog (if applicable)
• If app impacted requires authentication, did you login to a local build and verify all authenticated routes work as expected
• I added a screenshot of the developed feature

Requested Feedback

(OPTIONAL)What should the reviewers know in addition to the above. Is there anything specific you wish the reviewer to assist with. Do you have any concerns with this PR, why?

[github-actions]

Error: A file (or its parent directories) was deleted but its reference still exists in CODEOWNERS. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and delete the entry for the Offending file:

[github-actions]

1 Warning

⚠️

This PR changes 399 LoC (not counting whitespace/newlines). In order to ensure each PR receives the proper attention it deserves, we recommend not exceeding 200. Expect some delays getting reviews. File Summary Files .github/workflows/backend-pr-approver.yml (+24/-7) .github/workflows/backend-pr-labeler.yml (+56/-7) .github/workflows/be_review_prs.yml (+0/-78) .github/workflows/check_codeowners.yml (+1/-1) .github/workflows/code_checks.yml (+0/-79) .github/workflows/ready_for_review.yml (+0/-99) .github/workflows/require_backend_label.yml (+0/-47) Note: We exclude files matching the following when considering PR size: *.csv, *.json, *.tsv, *.txt, *.md, Gemfile.lock, app/swagger, modules/mobile/docs, spec/fixtures/, spec/support/vcr_cassettes/, modules/mobile/spec/support/vcr_cassettes/, db/seeds, modules/vaos/app/docs, modules/meb_api/app/docs, modules/appeals_api/app/swagger/, *.bru, *.pdf Big PRs are difficult to review, often become stale, and cause delays.

Generated by 🚫 Danger

[github-actions]

Error: A file (or its parent directories) does not have a CODEOWNERS entry. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and add the entry for the Offending file: