HDPI-8373: Add Claimant gen app journey - #2452
Conversation
07d39f5 to
2d17008
Compare
CCD diff summary👉 Full report: https://github.com/hmcts/pcs-api/actions/runs/32867056213?check_suite_focus=true AuthorisationCaseState.json
CaseField.json
AuthorisationCaseEvent/AuthorisationCaseEvent.json
AuthorisationCaseField/wlu-team-leader.json
AuthorisationCaseField/wlu-admin.json
AuthorisationCaseField/leadership-judge.json
AuthorisationCaseField/judge.json
AuthorisationCaseField/fee-paid-judge.json
AuthorisationCaseField/ctsc.json
AuthorisationCaseField/ctsc-team-leader.json
AuthorisationCaseField/circuit-judge.json
AuthorisationCaseField/CLAIMANTSOLICITOR.json
CaseEvent/claimantMakeAnApplication.json
CaseEventToFields/claimantMakeAnApplication.json
|
| .page("chooseAnApplication", this::midEvent) | ||
| .pageLabel("Choose an application") | ||
| .label("chooseAnApplication-lineSeparator", "---") | ||
| .label("chooseAnApplication-info", INFO_MARKDOWN) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Heads up — the defendant LR journey uses these same label ids
Affected ids:
chooseAnApplication-infostartAdjourn-infostartSetAside-infostartSomethingElse-infootherPartiesAgreed-inforeasonsNotToShare-infouploadSupportingDocuments-infostatementOfTruth-infowhatOrderWanted-adjournwhatOrderWanted-somethingElse
Could we prefix these with claimant?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually I think they only need to be unique within the event, so these shouldn't clash.
…gen_app # Conflicts: # src/main/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/service/genapp/GenAppVisibilityService.java # src/test/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/event/DashboardViewTest.java # src/test/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/service/dashboard/DashboardJourneyServiceTest.java # src/test/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/service/dashboard/task/ApplicationsTaskGroupEvaluatorTest.java # src/test/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/service/genapp/GenAppVisibilityServiceTest.java
|
|
||
| @Slf4j | ||
| @AllArgsConstructor | ||
| public class AppliedForHelpWithFees implements CcdPageConfiguration { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this is wired up
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed now - it's because I based the pages on the Defendant LR Make an Application journey, but this Claimant journey doesn't have that page
| public void addTo(PageBuilder pageBuilder) { | ||
| pageBuilder | ||
| .page("appliedForHelpWithFees") | ||
| .pageLabel("Confirm if they have they already applied for help with their application fee") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The class has been removed now
|
|
||
| SET_ASIDE("Ask the court to set aside (cancel) a decision the court has made - You can ask " | ||
| + "the court to set aside its order if you have a good reason. " | ||
| + "For example, if you were unable to attend the court hearing because your were ill"), |
| private static final String INFO_MARKDOWN = """ | ||
| <p class="govuk-body">The ‘other parties’ are the other people or organisations named on the claim form. | ||
| For example a tenant, landlord, housing association, or mortgage lender.</p> | ||
| <p class="govuk-body">Every other party will need to agree to let you you this application, if they |
| <p class="govuk-body">It usually costs ${xui_genapp_StandardFee} to apply.</p> | ||
| <p class="govuk-body govuk-!-margin-bottom-1">The fee will increase to ${xui_genapp_MaxFee} if:</p> | ||
| <ul class="govuk-list govuk-list--bullet"> | ||
| <li class="govuk-!-font-size-19">your have already told the other party that you are making |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
your have -> you have?
Jira link
See HDPI-8373
Change description
Add an ExUI journey for a claimant to make a general application. This is largely the same as the existing LR gen app journey, but with some content changes and no HwF pages.
I've added a new enum type
ClaimantGenAppTypeas the existingGenAppTypehas the display labels for the LR journey and cannot be changed dynamically for the claimant journey. TheGenAppTypeenum could be renamed to make it clear that it is for LRs but that would have touched quite a lot of files, so I didn't want to do it in this PR.A few of the pages from the journey:
Testing done
Manual testing on preview
Security Vulnerability Assessment
CVE Suppression: Are there any CVEs present in the codebase (either newly introduced or pre-existing) that are being intentionally suppressed or ignored by this commit?
Checklist
PCS checklist
@EnabledIfEnvironmentVariable(named = "CCD_ENABLED", ...)+ shutter guard) unless they must run on unlabelled PRs (HDPI-8084)