Submission Summary V2 with FetchContract #2350

pearl-truss · 2024-04-02T16:13:01Z

Summary

This PR

creates a V2 SubmissionSummary page that uses the new fetchContract API
Updates ReviewSubmitV2 to use submitContract so you should be able to test this without needing to switch feature flags on and off
Added mccrsID to fetchContract

Related issues

https://jiraent.cms.gov/browse/MCR-4014

Screenshots

Test cases covered

QA guidance

services/app-web/src/pages/SubmissionSummary/V2/SubmissionSummaryV2.tsx

…anaged-care-review into wml-db-history

haworku · 2024-04-18T16:10:57Z

services/app-web/src/common-code/ContractType.ts

    if (contract.draftRevision) {
        return contract.draftRevision
    } else {
-        return contract.packageSubmissions[0].contractRevision
+        return getLastContractSubmission(contract)?.contractRevision
    }
 }
 const isContractOnly = (contract: Contract): boolean => {


No change needed now just sharing thought when I see all these ? introduced to our utility functions.

Have all these optional checks around the contract revision's existence means the boolean becomes less sure - we could be getting false for malformatted data, not just for the actual intended check. I like seeing utilities, especially on the frontend like this (which are literally determining display state) be more strictly typed. We would have to handle data validation/ correctness checks much earlier in the React component, divert to an error state if theres any question about the data shape. Also starting to wonder if helpers should take the ContractFormData not the Contract along those lines - maybe have the component itself figure out which form data to pass? Not sure.

…e-review into mcr-4014-submission-submmary-v2

pearl-truss · 2024-04-18T18:08:39Z

services/app-web/src/components/ChangeHistory/ChangeHistoryV2.tsx

+            const isSubsequentSubmission = r.kind === 'submit'
+            // We want to know if this contract has multiple submissions. To have multiple submissions, there must be minimum
+            // more than the initial contract revision.
+            const hasSubsequentSubmissions = revisionHistory.length > 1


Previously this was set to >=3:

// We want to know if this package has multiple submissions. // To have multiple submissions, there must be minimum // 3 revisions in revisionHistory the initial submission revision, // unlock revision and resubmission revision. const hasSubsequentSubmissions = revisionHistory.length >= 3

I thought it might make sense to change it to > 1 because each packageSubmission has an array of revs but the multiple submissions part might not be relevant anymore?

The code change you made looks good to me. I would delete the comment totally- I agree that it doesn't make sense for the new world where related rate changes can result in entries in that same package submission array

macrael

looks great!

macrael · 2024-04-18T18:13:51Z

services/app-web/src/components/ChangeHistory/ChangeHistoryV2.tsx

+        const result: flatRevisions[] = []
+        //Reverse revisions to order from earliest to latest revision. This is to correctly set version for each
+        // contract & recontract.
+        const reversedRevisions = [...contract.packageSubmissions].reverse()


Do we want to put package submissions in time order? I was matching revisions b/c calling contract.packageSubmissions[0] feels like a nice way to always get the most recent submission but could be convinced otherwise

@macrael I think we do if we want to keep the order the same as what currently appears (unless I'm missing something?)

I don't think so. Multiple pages use that contract.packageSubmissions[0] logic already and its working well. This is edge case - I think it's literally just for that integer in the previous submission urls why we reverse in this order on this one page - everywhere else fine to keep current backend ordering and assume latest first.

macrael · 2024-04-18T18:15:30Z

services/app-web/src/components/ChangeHistory/ChangeHistoryV2.tsx

+                //Use unshift to push the latest revision unlock info to the beginning of the array
+                result.unshift(newUnlock)
+            }
+            if (r.contractRevision.submitInfo) {


this is necessary b/c it is optional in the types, but just to reiterate every revision in packageSubmissions must have this set.

macrael · 2024-04-18T18:25:05Z

...p-web/src/pages/StateSubmission/ReviewSubmit/V2/ReviewSubmit/RateDetailsSummarySectionV2.tsx

@@ -77,8 +78,8 @@ export const RateDetailsSummarySectionV2 = ({
        contract.draftRevision?.formData ||
        getLastContractSubmission(contract)?.contractRevision.formData
    const rates =
-        contract.draftRates ||


little weird to me that we're just grabbing one or the other.

I think we should be pulling from one or the other depending on isEditing. if isEditing then we are reading from draftRates, if not, then the latest submitted rates

@macrael I believe it's because of types that we do this.Everything is optional, so you want to narrow it early to avoid that optionality messing up the UI. If you do the current implementation of isEditing then either value could still be undefined which trickles down.

Def think we could use type assertions or more precise tools eventually. Maybe we need a design ticket on that? However, right now coming out GraphQL we don't have a union type that' s either a draft or a locked package, you have a type two optional subfields that determine what is being used, so you need to clear that early.

WIth this change, getting draftRates after checking for last submission, as a state user you won't see the current version of the rates if you are editing a submission that has been submitted before. Looking at it again I think this is a bug

macrael · 2024-04-18T18:29:09Z

services/app-web/src/pages/SubmissionSummary/V2/SubmissionSummaryV2.tsx

+        data: fetchContractData,
+        loading: fetchContractLoading,
+        error: fetchContractError,
+    } = useFetchContractQuery({


I know Hana isn't sold on it but I still think that the ApolloQueryWrapper is useful, makes some impossible cases impossible

haworku · 2024-04-18T18:41:37Z

services/app-web/src/components/ChangeHistory/ChangeHistoryV2.tsx

+        const result: flatRevisions[] = []
+        //Reverse revisions to order from earliest to latest revision. This is to correctly set version for each
+        // contract & recontract.
+        const reversedRevisions = [...contract.packageSubmissions].reverse()


🔍 Is this code working properly with linked rates?

I am under the impression that we would only want contract related package submissions in our change right now. I think at this point we only seek parity with current ChangeHistory display (e.g. even if there are linked rates we are not yet adding in linked rates to change history). The problem I see is right now we are mapping over all the packageSubmissions, won't there be extra fields then in the Change history currently?

I would think we need to filter only contract changes from packageSubmission array into the reversedRevisions array.

Change history work with the full package submissions list is entirely different epic I believe

@macrael can you weigh in?

I think that if you filtered out all packages that dont have reason: "CONTRACT_SUBMISSION" then you will have the same number of entries as before. That will also give us the correct unlock reasons, we should only ever show unlocks from CONTRACT_SUBMISSION, not from RATE* updates

I definitely want this code to be using packageSubmissions and get off of the old revisions code

@haworku that makes sense to me

@pearl-truss sounds like @macrael agrees, we should be filtering only the contract_submission packages here - can you make that change and ignore rate stuff? Otherwise looks good.

pearl-truss · 2024-04-18T19:09:10Z

services/app-web/src/pages/App/AppRoutes.tsx

@@ -216,7 +232,13 @@ const CMSUserRoutes = ({
                    )}
                    <Route
                        path={RoutesRecord.SUBMISSIONS_SUMMARY}
-                        element={<SubmissionSummary />}
+                        element={


@haworku @macrael should the CMS version of the submissionSummary use the V2 page? They have the 'unlock contract' button that isn't currently covered

Ugh! Scoop creep. Make it a new ticket. Yes it should because thats the only way CMS can see linked rates stuff. CMS absolutely needs to be seeing the v2 page once linked rates is on.

Maybe we could get away fetching with new API and doing the unlock with the old HPP API and the old unlock on this v2 page for this one case on the V2 page. Need to look

I created the ticket here

macrael and others added 3 commits April 1, 2024 11:48

initial commit of resolvers working

f8fc4e2

submitContract can only be called by state user

b355084

create submissionsummaryv2

ce369d7

github-actions bot requested a deployment to review-apps April 2, 2024 17:14 In progress

create and use v2 version of contract details summary section component

3e45343

github-actions bot requested a deployment to review-apps April 2, 2024 20:03 In progress

temp comment out reviewsubmitv2 for testing

5836518

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 2, 2024 21:13 View deployment

macrael and others added 6 commits April 2, 2024 14:59

get submitContract working

e2dd1b0

add test helpers for contracts, test single linked rate

a36eb52

fix after linting

0cd849c

fix some bugs

a42ea4b

get setup of scenario working

1686aa9

Wip with handling submit

8201ea0

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Apr 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

services/app-web/src/pages/SubmissionSummary/V2/SubmissionSummaryV2.tsx Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

github-actions bot requested a deployment to review-apps April 4, 2024 20:03 In progress

pearl-truss added 2 commits April 4, 2024 16:59

fix some of the api test

0696cae

Remove console logs

aa2e7c9

github-actions bot requested a deployment to review-apps April 4, 2024 21:08 In progress

github-actions bot requested a deployment to review-apps April 4, 2024 21:12 In progress

macrael and others added 2 commits April 4, 2024 15:28

unlock child rates

ec4cd34

fix linting to deploy review app

609af02

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 5, 2024 13:27 View deployment

mojotalantikite and others added 4 commits April 5, 2024 17:52

add 90% of jason's diagram to test

ff4d5b9

get parentContractID into rate and check it

24f8970

Merge branch 'wml-db-history' of https://github.com/Enterprise-CMCS/m…

1b05f8d

…anaged-care-review into wml-db-history

Create graphql for submitContract and new fetchSubmittedContract

c66526b

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 8, 2024 13:37 View deployment

remove changes to submitContract postgres func

8dd9b62

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 8, 2024 13:49 View deployment

haworku reviewed Apr 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

remove references to packages in unlockSubmitModalV2

37c9b04

pearl-truss marked this pull request as ready for review April 18, 2024 16:18

Base automatically changed from wml-db-history to main April 18, 2024 16:56

remove access optioinal chanining

2252971

github-actions bot requested a deployment to review-apps April 18, 2024 17:05 In progress

update changehistoryv2 language and logic

e3ae827

github-actions bot requested a deployment to review-apps April 18, 2024 17:12 In progress

add submissionsummartV2 for cmsRoutes

7ee8429

github-actions bot requested a deployment to review-apps April 18, 2024 17:38 In progress

pearl-truss added 2 commits April 18, 2024 13:40

fix reviewsubmit test

8b09893

Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/Enterprise-CMCS/managed-car…

7784374

…e-review into mcr-4014-submission-submmary-v2

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 18, 2024 17:45 View deployment

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 18, 2024 17:52 View deployment

pearl-truss commented Apr 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

macrael approved these changes Apr 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

haworku reviewed Apr 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

pr updates

f555a3b

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 18, 2024 18:50 View deployment

restrict change history to contract actions for now

11d0268

pearl-truss commented Apr 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 18, 2024 19:13 View deployment

haworku approved these changes Apr 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

pearl-truss added 2 commits April 18, 2024 15:25

fix resubmit

5bc2584

add reverse

d9c1df9

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 18, 2024 19:37 View deployment

github-actions bot deployed to review-apps April 18, 2024 19:40 View deployment

pearl-truss merged commit 443fc34 into main Apr 18, 2024
28 checks passed

pearl-truss deleted the mcr-4014-submission-submmary-v2 branch April 18, 2024 20:10

pearl-truss mentioned this pull request May 2, 2024

Add unlock action to change history for drafts #2415

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Submission Summary V2 with FetchContract #2350

Submission Summary V2 with FetchContract #2350

pearl-truss commented Apr 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pearl-truss Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

macrael left a comment

macrael Apr 18, 2024

pearl-truss Apr 18, 2024

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

macrael Apr 18, 2024

macrael Apr 18, 2024

haworku Apr 18, 2024

macrael Apr 18, 2024

macrael Apr 18, 2024

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

macrael Apr 18, 2024

pearl-truss Apr 18, 2024

haworku Apr 18, 2024

pearl-truss Apr 18, 2024

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pearl-truss Apr 18, 2024

Submission Summary V2 with FetchContract #2350

Submission Summary V2 with FetchContract #2350

Conversation

pearl-truss commented Apr 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Summary

Related issues

Screenshots

Test cases covered

QA guidance

haworku Apr 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pearl-truss Apr 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

haworku Apr 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

macrael left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

haworku Apr 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

haworku Apr 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

haworku Apr 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pearl-truss commented Apr 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pearl-truss Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

haworku Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading