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

Jadudm/automatic uei waiver #4872

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Jadudm/automatic uei waiver #4872

wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

jadudm
Copy link
Contributor

@jadudm jadudm commented Apr 8, 2025

Haiku-length summary

If SAM is away
The audits must flow anon
Grant waivers forthwith

Description

This PR catches HTTP responses from SAM.gov in the set {401, 403, 404, 405, 406, 410, 418, 429, 451}, which would occur if we had an API key that was no longer valid or if SAM.gov was offline. (Several of the responses are highly unlikely, but we handle them "just in case.") Currently, when this occurs, users of the FAC can no longer create audits. We have decided we must more gracefully handle SAM.gov errors, and are going to automatically issue a waiver (and log/provide an auditable trail) when we encounter this situation.

This PR also brings in the ADR marking this decision.

Questions

  • Should we handle errors other than 403? (See line 151 of uei.py) That is, should we handle conditions where SAM is offline the same way (a 404)?
  • What text should we use for the justification?
  • What text should we use for the auditee name? It will only be seen by the user briefly. Perhaps it is best to leave blank?

To do

  • Tests
  • Should there be an E2E test that exercises this? (How would the E2E test check the waiver status? Cypress cannot, so perhaps this is not an option at this time.)

PR Checklist: Submitter

  • Link to an issue if possible. If there’s no issue, describe what your branch does. Even if there is an issue, a brief description in the PR is still useful.
  • List any special steps reviewers have to follow to test the PR. For example, adding a local environment variable, creating a local test file, etc.
  • For extra credit, submit a screen recording like this one.
  • Make sure you’ve merged main into your branch shortly before creating the PR. (You should also be merging main into your branch regularly during development.)
  • Make sure you’ve accounted for any migrations. When you’re about to create the PR, bring up the application locally and then run git status | grep migrations. If there are any results, you probably need to add them to the branch for the PR. Your PR should have only one new migration file for each of the component apps, except in rare circumstances; you may need to delete some and re-run python manage.py makemigrations to reduce the number to one. (Also, unless in exceptional circumstances, your PR should not delete any migration files.)
  • Make sure that whatever feature you’re adding has tests that cover the feature. This includes test coverage to make sure that the previous workflow still works, if applicable.
  • Make sure the full-submission.cy.js Cypress test passes, if applicable.
  • Do manual testing locally. Our tests are not good enough yet to allow us to skip this step. If that’s not applicable for some reason, check this box.
  • Verify that no Git surgery was necessary, or, if it was necessary at any point, repeat the testing after it’s finished.
  • Once a PR is merged, keep an eye on it until it’s deployed to dev, and do enough testing on dev to verify that it deployed successfully, the feature works as expected, and the happy path for the broad feature area (such as submission) still works.
  • Ensure that prior to merging, the working branch is up to date with main and the terraform plan is what you expect.

PR Checklist: Reviewer

  • Pull the branch to your local environment and run make docker-clean; make docker-first-run && docker compose up; then run docker compose exec web /bin/bash -c "python manage.py test"
  • Manually test out the changes locally, or check this box to verify that it wasn’t applicable in this case.
  • Check that the PR has appropriate tests. Look out for changes in HTML/JS/JSON Schema logic that may need to be captured in Python tests even though the logic isn’t in Python.
  • Verify that no Git surgery is necessary at any point (such as during a merge party), or, if it was, repeat the testing after it’s finished.

The larger the PR, the stricter we should be about these points.

Pre Merge Checklist: Merger

  • Ensure that prior to approving, the terraform plan is what we expect it to be. -/+ resource "null_resource" "cors_header" should be destroying and recreating its self and ~ resource "cloudfoundry_app" "clamav_api" might be updating its sha256 for the fac-file-scanner and fac-av-${ENV} by default.
  • Ensure that the branch is up to date with main.
  • Ensure that a terraform plan has been recently generated for the pull request.

jadudm added 3 commits April 8, 2025 09:17
I really don't know what we want to put for the name of the entity. It
might be better to leave blank. I'm going to move this to a draft PR for
others to put eyes on.
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 8, 2025

Terraform plan for meta

No changes. Your infrastructure matches the configuration.
No changes. Your infrastructure matches the configuration.

Terraform has compared your real infrastructure against your configuration
and found no differences, so no changes are needed.

📝 Plan generated in Pull Request Checks #4584

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 8, 2025

Terraform plan for dev

Plan: 1 to add, 0 to change, 1 to destroy.
Terraform used the selected providers to generate the following execution
plan. Resource actions are indicated with the following symbols:
-/+ destroy and then create replacement

Terraform will perform the following actions:

  # module.dev.module.cors.null_resource.cors_header must be replaced
-/+ resource "null_resource" "cors_header" {
!~      id       = "*******************" -> (known after apply)
!~      triggers = { # forces replacement
!~          "always_run" = "2025-04-10T13:38:47Z" -> (known after apply)
        }
    }

Plan: 1 to add, 0 to change, 1 to destroy.

📝 Plan generated in Pull Request Checks #4584

Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is not up to date with main. Please merge main into this brach or rebase this branch onto main. This PR should not be approved until all status checks pass. If you see this message, please rerun all status checks before merging.

Adding a check to see the waiver was granted/generated.
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is not up to date with main. Please merge main into this brach or rebase this branch onto main. This PR should not be approved until all status checks pass. If you see this message, please rerun all status checks before merging.

Because we allow a 403/404, we need to make sure we match the schema
here.
@jadudm jadudm marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2025 14:10
Copy link
Contributor

Code Coverage

Package Line Rate Branch Rate Health
. 100% 100%
api 99% 88%
api.serializers 97% 88%
api.views 91% 100%
audit 95% 80%
audit.cross_validation 97% 85%
audit.fixtures 84% 50%
audit.intakelib 89% 83%
audit.intakelib.checks 92% 85%
audit.intakelib.common 98% 82%
audit.intakelib.transforms 100% 95%
audit.management.commands 78% 17%
audit.migrations 100% 100%
audit.models 92% 62%
audit.templatetags 100% 100%
audit.views 74% 55%
census_historical_migration 96% 65%
census_historical_migration.migrations 100% 100%
census_historical_migration.sac_general_lib 92% 84%
census_historical_migration.transforms 95% 90%
census_historical_migration.workbooklib 68% 69%
config 77% 37%
curation 100% 100%
curation.curationlib 93% 100%
curation.migrations 100% 100%
dissemination 91% 69%
dissemination.migrations 97% 25%
dissemination.report_generation 29% 0%
dissemination.report_generation.excel 32% 0%
dissemination.searchlib 59% 41%
dissemination.templatetags 100% 100%
dissemination.views 76% 55%
djangooidc 53% 38%
djangooidc.tests 100% 94%
report_submission 100% 95%
report_submission.migrations 100% 100%
report_submission.templatetags 74% 100%
report_submission.views 77% 63%
support 93% 74%
support.migrations 100% 100%
support.models 90% 50%
tools 98% 50%
users 95% 92%
users.fixtures 100% 83%
users.management 100% 100%
users.management.commands 100% 100%
users.migrations 100% 100%
Summary 89% (20012 / 22449) 71% (2439 / 3452)

@sambodeme
Copy link
Contributor

@jadudm
I was trying to find a way to test this, so I temporarily added the following code inside get_uei_info_from_sam_gov to override SAM’s response:

class MockResponse:
    def __init__(self, status_code, reason=None, json_data=None):
        self.status_code = status_code
        self.reason = reason or self.get_reason_phrase(status_code)
        self._json = json_data or {}

    def json(self):
        return self._json
 ... 
 ...
 ...
resp, error = call_sam_api(SAM_API_URL, api_params, api_headers)
resp = MockResponse(403)  # Simulating a 403 

On the UI side, after the pop-up prompting me to input the entity name appeared, I clicked “Cancel,” then repeated the same steps three times. On the third attempt, I clicked OK and noticed that it created three ueiValidation records.
We may want to delay the creation of the ueiValidation record till after the user inputs the dates and clicks Continue. This would prevent unnecessary or duplicate records from being created when the user cancels or retries.
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants