DIAC-1078 Request respondent review of appellant case 7 day complianc… (#2580)

* DIAC-1078 Request respondent review of appellant case 7 day compliance date - code logic updated, unit tests added, new constants added, functional test WIP

* Bumping chart version/ fixing aliases

* functional test desc corrected, functional test expectation sendDirectionExplanation added

* functional test added DIAC-1078 Request respondent review when NOT detained

---------

Co-authored-by: hmcts-jenkins-d-to-i <62423932+hmcts-jenkins-d-to-i[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: rajeshthuraiyur <48379561+rajeshthuraiyur@users.noreply.github.com>

Author: 3 people

charts/ia-case-api/values.yaml

@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ java:
     REQUEST_RESPONDENT_EVIDENCE_DETAINED_DUE_IN_DAYS: 7
     REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW_DUE_IN_DAYS: 14
     REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW_ADA_DUE_IN_DAYS: 2
+    REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW_DETAINED_DUE_IN_DAYS: 7
     APPELLANT_REASONS_FOR_APPEAL_DUE_IN_DAYS: 28
     PAYMENT_AFTER_REMISSION_REJECTION_DUE_IN_MINUTES: 20160
     PAYMENT_EA_HU_NO_REMISSION_DUE_IN_MINUTES: 20160

src/functionalTest/resources/scenarios/DIAC-1078-request-respondent-review-start-detained.json

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+{
+  "description": "DIAC-1078 Request respondent review when detained - check sendDirectionDateDue ",
+  "request": {
+    "uri": "/asylum/ccdAboutToStart",
+    "credentials": "CaseOfficer",
+    "input": {
+      "eventId": "requestRespondentReview",
+      "state": "awaitingRespondentReview",
+      "caseData": {
+        "template": "minimal-appeal-submitted.json",
+        "replacements": {
+          "appellantInDetention": "Yes",
+          "homeOfficeSearchStatus": "SUCCESS",
+          "sendDirectionExplanation": null,
+          "sendDirectionParties": null,
+          "sendDirectionDateDue": null
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  "expectation": {
+    "status": 200,
+    "errors": [],
+    "caseData": {
+      "template": "minimal-appeal-submitted.json",
+      "replacements": {
+        "sendDirectionExplanation": "By the date below you must review the appellant’s ASA and bundle.\nThe review must comply with (i) Rule 24A (3) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014 and (ii) Practice Direction (1.11.2024) Part 2, section 2.1 (e), Part 3, sections 7.11 – 7.12. Specifically, the review must:\n\n- be meaningful.\n- explain whether you agree that the schedule of disputed issues is correct. If not, the review must set out the correct list of disputed issues, including whether there are any further issues that the respondent wishes to raise.\n- state whether you oppose or accept the appellant’s position on each issue and why.\n- cross-reference your submissions to paragraphs in the decision under appeal, pages in the respondent’s bundle, any country information evidence schedule, and/or any additional evidence relied upon.\n- specify which, if any, witnesses you intend to cross-examine and if you do not intend to cross-examine a witness, outline any objections to that witness’s statement being read by a judge.\n- address whether the appeal should be allowed on any ground if the appellant and/or their key witnesses are found to be credible according to the applicable standard of proof.\n- identify whether you are prepared to withdraw the decision (or part of it).\n- state whether the appeal can be resolved without a hearing.\n- not exceed 6 pages unless reasons are submitted in an accompanying application.\n- not contain standard or pro-forma paragraphs.\n- provide the name of the author of the review and the date.\n\nParties must ensure they conduct proceedings with procedural rigour. The Tribunal will not overlook breaches of the requirements of the Procedure Rules, Practice Statement or Practice Direction, nor failures to comply with directions issued by the Tribunal. Parties are reminded of the sanctions for non-compliance set out in paragraph 5.3 of the Practice Direction of 01.11.24.",
+        "sendDirectionParties": "respondent",
+        "sendDirectionDateDue": "{$TODAY+7}"
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}

src/functionalTest/resources/scenarios/DIAC-1078-request-respondent-review-start.json

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+{
+  "description": "DIAC-1078 Request respondent review when NOT detained - check sendDirectionDateDue ",
+  "request": {
+    "uri": "/asylum/ccdAboutToStart",
+    "credentials": "CaseOfficer",
+    "input": {
+      "eventId": "requestRespondentReview",
+      "state": "awaitingRespondentReview",
+      "caseData": {
+        "template": "minimal-appeal-submitted.json",
+        "replacements": {
+          "appellantInDetention": "No",
+          "homeOfficeSearchStatus": "SUCCESS",
+          "sendDirectionExplanation": null,
+          "sendDirectionParties": null,
+          "sendDirectionDateDue": null
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  "expectation": {
+    "status": 200,
+    "errors": [],
+    "caseData": {
+      "template": "minimal-appeal-submitted.json",
+      "replacements": {
+        "sendDirectionExplanation": "By the date below you must review the appellant’s ASA and bundle.\nThe review must comply with (i) Rule 24A (3) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014 and (ii) Practice Direction (1.11.2024) Part 2, section 2.1 (e), Part 3, sections 7.11 – 7.12. Specifically, the review must:\n\n- be meaningful.\n- explain whether you agree that the schedule of disputed issues is correct. If not, the review must set out the correct list of disputed issues, including whether there are any further issues that the respondent wishes to raise.\n- state whether you oppose or accept the appellant’s position on each issue and why.\n- cross-reference your submissions to paragraphs in the decision under appeal, pages in the respondent’s bundle, any country information evidence schedule, and/or any additional evidence relied upon.\n- specify which, if any, witnesses you intend to cross-examine and if you do not intend to cross-examine a witness, outline any objections to that witness’s statement being read by a judge.\n- address whether the appeal should be allowed on any ground if the appellant and/or their key witnesses are found to be credible according to the applicable standard of proof.\n- identify whether you are prepared to withdraw the decision (or part of it).\n- state whether the appeal can be resolved without a hearing.\n- not exceed 6 pages unless reasons are submitted in an accompanying application.\n- not contain standard or pro-forma paragraphs.\n- provide the name of the author of the review and the date.\n\nParties must ensure they conduct proceedings with procedural rigour. The Tribunal will not overlook breaches of the requirements of the Procedure Rules, Practice Statement or Practice Direction, nor failures to comply with directions issued by the Tribunal. Parties are reminded of the sanctions for non-compliance set out in paragraph 5.3 of the Practice Direction of 01.11.24.",
+        "sendDirectionParties": "respondent",
+        "sendDirectionDateDue": "{$TODAY+14}"
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}

src/main/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/iacaseapi/domain/handlers/presubmit/RequestRespondentReviewPreparer.java

@@ -24,17 +24,20 @@ public class RequestRespondentReviewPreparer implements PreSubmitCallbackHandler
 
     private final int requestRespondentReviewDueInDays;
     private final int requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForAda;
+    private final int requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForDetained;
     private final DateProvider dateProvider;
     private final DueDateService dueDateService;
 
     public RequestRespondentReviewPreparer(
         @Value("${requestRespondentReview.dueInDays}") int requestRespondentReviewDueInDays,
         @Value("${requestRespondentReviewAda.dueInDays}") int requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForAda,
+        @Value("${requestRespondentReviewDetained.dueInDays}") int requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForDetained,
         DateProvider dateProvider,
         DueDateService dueDateService
     ) {
         this.requestRespondentReviewDueInDays = requestRespondentReviewDueInDays;
         this.requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForAda = requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForAda;
+        this.requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForDetained = requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForDetained;
         this.dateProvider = dateProvider;
         this.dueDateService = dueDateService;
     }
@@ -82,14 +85,27 @@ public PreSubmitCallbackResponse<AsylumCase> handle(
         );
 
         asylumCase.write(SEND_DIRECTION_PARTIES, Parties.RESPONDENT);
-        
-        LocalDate dueDate = HandlerUtils.isAcceleratedDetainedAppeal(asylumCase)
-                ? dueDateService.calculateDueDate(dateProvider.now().atStartOfDay(ZoneOffset.UTC), requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForAda).toLocalDate()
-                : dateProvider.now().plusDays(requestRespondentReviewDueInDays);
+
+        LocalDate dueDate = getDueDate(asylumCase);
+
         asylumCase.write(SEND_DIRECTION_DATE_DUE, dueDate.toString());
 
         asylumCase.write(UPLOAD_HOME_OFFICE_APPEAL_RESPONSE_ACTION_AVAILABLE, YesOrNo.YES);
 
         return new PreSubmitCallbackResponse<>(asylumCase);
     }
+
+    private LocalDate getDueDate(AsylumCase asylumCase) {
+        LocalDate dueDate;
+
+        if (HandlerUtils.isAcceleratedDetainedAppeal(asylumCase)) {
+            dueDate = dueDateService.calculateDueDate(dateProvider.now().atStartOfDay(ZoneOffset.UTC), requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForAda).toLocalDate();
+        } else if (HandlerUtils.isAppellantInDetention(asylumCase)) {
+            dueDate = dateProvider.now().plusDays(requestRespondentReviewDueInDaysForDetained);
+        } else {
+            dueDate = dateProvider.now().plusDays(requestRespondentReviewDueInDays);
+        }
+
+        return dueDate;
+    }
 }

src/main/resources/application.yaml

@@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ requestRespondentEvidence.dueInDaysAda: ${REQUEST_RESPONDENT_EVIDENCE_ADA_DUE_IN
 requestRespondentEvidence.dueInDaysDetained: ${REQUEST_RESPONDENT_EVIDENCE_DETAINED_DUE_IN_DAYS:7}
 requestRespondentReview.dueInDays: ${REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW_DUE_IN_DAYS:14}
 requestRespondentReviewAda.dueInDays: ${REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW_ADA_DUE_IN_DAYS:2}
+requestRespondentReviewDetained.dueInDays: ${REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW_DETAINED_DUE_IN_DAYS:7}
 appellantReasonsForAppeal.dueInDays: ${APPELLANT_REASONS_FOR_APPEAL_DUE_IN_DAYS:28}
 paymentAfterRemissionRejection.dueInMinutes: ${PAYMENT_AFTER_REMISSION_REJECTION_DUE_IN_MINUTES:20160}
 legalRepresentativeRemissionReminder.dueInMinutes: ${LEGAL_REP_REMISSION_REMINDER_DUE_IN_MINUTES:10080}

src/test/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/iacaseapi/domain/handlers/presubmit/RequestRespondentReviewPreparerTest.java

@@ -7,15 +7,18 @@
 import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotNull;
 import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertTrue;
 import static org.mockito.ArgumentMatchers.any;
+import static org.mockito.ArgumentMatchers.anyInt;
 import static org.mockito.ArgumentMatchers.eq;
 import static org.mockito.Mockito.reset;
 import static org.mockito.Mockito.times;
 import static org.mockito.Mockito.verify;
 import static org.mockito.Mockito.when;
+import static uk.gov.hmcts.reform.iacaseapi.domain.entities.AppealType.PA;
 import static uk.gov.hmcts.reform.iacaseapi.domain.entities.AsylumCaseFieldDefinition.*;
 
 import java.time.LocalDate;
 import java.time.ZoneOffset;
+import java.time.ZonedDateTime;
 import java.util.List;
 import java.util.Optional;
 import org.junit.jupiter.api.BeforeEach;
@@ -30,6 +33,7 @@
 import org.mockito.junit.jupiter.MockitoSettings;
 import org.mockito.quality.Strictness;
 import uk.gov.hmcts.reform.iacaseapi.domain.DateProvider;
+import uk.gov.hmcts.reform.iacaseapi.domain.entities.AppealType;
 import uk.gov.hmcts.reform.iacaseapi.domain.entities.AsylumCase;
 import uk.gov.hmcts.reform.iacaseapi.domain.entities.AsylumCaseFieldDefinition;
 import uk.gov.hmcts.reform.iacaseapi.domain.entities.Parties;
@@ -49,6 +53,7 @@ class RequestRespondentReviewPreparerTest {
 
     private static final int DUE_IN_DAYS = 14;
     private static final int ADA_DUE_IN_DAYS = 2;
+    private static final int DETAINED_DUE_IN_DAYS = 7;
     @Mock
     private DateProvider dateProvider;
     @Mock
@@ -73,7 +78,7 @@ class RequestRespondentReviewPreparerTest {
     @BeforeEach
     public void setUp() {
         requestRespondentReviewPreparer =
-            new RequestRespondentReviewPreparer(DUE_IN_DAYS, ADA_DUE_IN_DAYS, dateProvider, dueDateService);
+            new RequestRespondentReviewPreparer(DUE_IN_DAYS, ADA_DUE_IN_DAYS, DETAINED_DUE_IN_DAYS, dateProvider, dueDateService);
     }
 
     @ParameterizedTest
@@ -186,4 +191,64 @@ void should_not_allow_null_arguments() {
             .hasMessage("callback must not be null")
             .isExactlyInstanceOf(NullPointerException.class);
     }
+
+    @Test
+    void should_return_due_date_for_accelerated_detained_appeal() {
+        LocalDate today = LocalDate.of(2025, 5,5);
+        ZonedDateTime adaDueDate = today.plusDays(ADA_DUE_IN_DAYS).atStartOfDay(ZoneOffset.UTC);
+        String expectedDueDate = "2025-05-07";
+
+        when(callback.getCaseDetails()).thenReturn(caseDetails);
+        when(callback.getEvent()).thenReturn(Event.REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW);
+        when(caseDetails.getCaseData()).thenReturn(asylumCase);
+        when(asylumCase.read(IS_ACCELERATED_DETAINED_APPEAL, YesOrNo.class)).thenReturn(Optional.of(YesOrNo.YES));
+        when(dateProvider.now()).thenReturn(today);
+        when(asylumCase.read(APPEAL_TYPE, AppealType.class)).thenReturn(Optional.of(PA));
+        when(dueDateService.calculateDueDate(
+                any(), anyInt()))
+                .thenReturn(adaDueDate);
+
+        PreSubmitCallbackResponse<AsylumCase> response =
+                requestRespondentReviewPreparer.handle(PreSubmitCallbackStage.ABOUT_TO_START, callback);
+
+        verify(asylumCase).write(SEND_DIRECTION_DATE_DUE, expectedDueDate);
+    }
+
+    @Test
+    void should_return_due_date_for_standard_case() {
+        LocalDate today = LocalDate.of(2025, 5,5);
+        String expectedDueDate = "2025-05-19";
+
+        when(callback.getCaseDetails()).thenReturn(caseDetails);
+        when(callback.getEvent()).thenReturn(Event.REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW);
+        when(caseDetails.getCaseData()).thenReturn(asylumCase);
+        when(asylumCase.read(IS_ACCELERATED_DETAINED_APPEAL, YesOrNo.class)).thenReturn(Optional.of(YesOrNo.NO));
+        when(dateProvider.now()).thenReturn(today);
+        when(asylumCase.read(APPEAL_TYPE, AppealType.class)).thenReturn(Optional.of(PA));
+
+        PreSubmitCallbackResponse<AsylumCase> response =
+                requestRespondentReviewPreparer.handle(PreSubmitCallbackStage.ABOUT_TO_START, callback);
+
+        verify(asylumCase).write(SEND_DIRECTION_DATE_DUE, expectedDueDate);
+    }
+
+    @Test
+    void should_return_due_date_for_detained_case() {
+        LocalDate today = LocalDate.of(2025, 5,5);
+        String expectedDueDate = "2025-05-12";
+
+        when(callback.getCaseDetails()).thenReturn(caseDetails);
+        when(callback.getEvent()).thenReturn(Event.REQUEST_RESPONDENT_REVIEW);
+        when(caseDetails.getCaseData()).thenReturn(asylumCase);
+        when(asylumCase.read(IS_ACCELERATED_DETAINED_APPEAL, YesOrNo.class)).thenReturn(Optional.of(YesOrNo.NO));
+        when(asylumCase.read(APPELLANT_IN_DETENTION, YesOrNo.class)).thenReturn(Optional.of(YesOrNo.YES));
+        when(dateProvider.now()).thenReturn(today);
+        when(asylumCase.read(APPEAL_TYPE, AppealType.class)).thenReturn(Optional.of(PA));
+
+        PreSubmitCallbackResponse<AsylumCase> response =
+                requestRespondentReviewPreparer.handle(PreSubmitCallbackStage.ABOUT_TO_START, callback);
+
+        verify(asylumCase).write(SEND_DIRECTION_DATE_DUE, expectedDueDate);
+    }
+
 }