Refactor: field defaults, optional fields, templates

[thekaveman]

This PR is another step along the way of making it easier and faster to configure new TransitAgency and EnrollmentFlow instances, while also ensuring a valid configuration for instances that are going live on the app.

Changes

TransitAgency

• Make the slug field a Django SlugField to enforce the slugness; this field is now used to calculate template paths as well
• Make all Eligibility API fields, Transit Processor API fields optional
• Defaults for info fields e.g. long_name, phone from CST defaults
• Calculate sane defaults for templates from the slug following our established pattern, e.g. core/index--{slug}.html and eligibility/index--{slug}.html
• Retain ability to override templates if needed
• Setting active=True validates some fields (e.g. info fields, templates must exist)

EnrollmentFlow

• Make the system_name field a Django SlugField to enforce slugness; this field is now used to calculate template paths as well
• Make all template fields optional
• Calculate sane defaults for templates from the system_name or slug following our established pattern, e.g. eligibility/start--{system_name}.html and enrollment/success--{slug}.html
• Remove the specific name of the agency card from templates, like courtesy-card
• Calculate defaults specific to Agency Card flows establishing a new pattern, e.g. eligibility/start--{slug}-agency-card.html
• Retain ability to override templates if needed
• When the EnrollmentFlow has an active TransitAgency, validates that templates exist and that either claims verification or Eligibility API verification is configured correctly.

Reviewing

1. Check out this branch locally
2. Delete your database
3. Run bin/reset_db.sh with default fixtures
4. Launch the app
5. Run through various flows, ensure no regressions
6. Sign in to the Admin
7. Verify that new TransitAgency instances can be created with only the slug field provided
8. Verify that saving an active TransitAgency requires certain info fields to have values
9. Verify that saving an active TransitAgency requires templates to exist, and the defaults are calculated from the slug)
10. Verify that saving an EnrollmentFlow with an active TransitAgency requires a valid claims or Eligibility API verification configuration
11. Verify that saving an EnrollmentFlow with an active TransitAgency requires templates to exist, and defaults are calculated from the system_name or TransitAgency.slug.

[github-actions]

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
benefits/core
admin.py
context_processors.py
models.py
benefits/enrollment
views.py
Project Total

This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action

[lalver1]

I tested running through these flows and they all looked good:

• Medicare ✅
• Older Adult ✅
• Calfresh ✅
• Veteran ✅
• Agency Card ✅

These admin panel actions also behaved as expected:

1. New TransitAgency instances can be created with only the slug field provided ✅
2. Saving an active TransitAgency requires certain info fields to have values ✅
3. Saving an active TransitAgency requires templates to exist (and the defaults are calculated from the slug) ✅
4. Saving an EnrollmentFlow with an active TransitAgency requires templates to exist, and defaults are calculated from the system_name or TransitAgency.slug ✅

At first I was a bit confused about action 4 above, because to review I created a new EnrollmentFlow without claims information for an active agency and so what I got in the eligibility form was another Agency Cardholder radio input identical to the existing one. But this is completely normal and basically shows that for a case like this, overriding the selection label template would be needed.

[thekaveman]

I created a new EnrollmentFlow without claims information for an active agency

Hmmm... this seems like it should be an error. I.e. we should have either claims information or Eligibility API information on the flow for an active agency.

Seems like this is something we should check for in the clean() -- thoughts?

[lalver1]

Yep, now that I look at it again, I feel it should be an error. I think that if we add something like

if self.claims_provider and not bool(self.claims_scope):
    errors.update(claims_scope=ValidationError("Missing scope"))

if self.claims_provider and not bool(self.claims_eligibility_claim):
    errors.update(claims_eligibility_claim=ValidationError("Missing eligibility claim"))

to clean() anywhere before

if errors:
   raise ValidationError(errors)

then the form will give a validation error if a claims_provider has been selected but no scope/claim has been entered. Then let's suppose that the scope/claim info is entered but templates have not been created, then the existing template validation section of clean() (starting on line 624) will correctly return that the template was not found.

I think a similar check should happen if it is an Eligibility API flow. Currently if self.claims_provider is blank, we can still save the flow and another Agency Cardholder radio input identical to the existing one is displayed.