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

AP-5828: Editing applications feasibility spike #7711

Draft
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jsugarman
Copy link
Contributor

What

Spike to investigate editing applications

Link to story

Checklist

Before you ask people to review this PR:

  • Tests and rubocop should be passing: bundle exec rake.
  • Github should not be reporting conflicts; you should have recently run git rebase main.
  • The development standards and Git Workflow documentation on Confluence should be followed.
  • There should be no unnecessary whitespace changes. These make diffs harder to read and conflicts more likely.
  • The PR description should say what you changed and why, with a link to the JIRA story.
  • You should have looked at the diff against main and ensured that nothing unexpected is included in your changes.
  • You should have checked that the commit messages say why the change was made.

@jsugarman jsugarman requested a review from a team as a code owner March 20, 2025 08:10
@jsugarman jsugarman added the do not merge This PR should not be merged label Mar 20, 2025
@jsugarman jsugarman marked this pull request as draft March 20, 2025 08:11
@jsugarman jsugarman added spike Demo or proposed changes for work on a SPIKE Discussion labels Mar 20, 2025
@jsugarman jsugarman force-pushed the ap-5828/editing-applications-feasibility-spike branch 6 times, most recently from 765d902 to ff7e985 Compare March 27, 2025 09:14
Spike using NSCC task list but modified and then customised
to handle validating all forms and or models via the notion
of a "task validator".
This inherits from the base_state_machine but overrides its `aasm` block, thereby
not implementing ANY states and events. This may allow us to build up the
state machine in isolation and transfer only what is needed.

It allows the CYA flow to continue as is, but if the users returns to the task
list then its behavior reverts to the primary/first-pass flow. This kind of what
we want, but designers may want the task list flow to be go back to the task list
between tasks when editing completed tasks.
This has the advantage of making the data elements immutable
and can combine multiple attributes and, if needed in the future,
add methods to the Data object itself.
@jsugarman jsugarman force-pushed the ap-5828/editing-applications-feasibility-spike branch from ff7e985 to 0e38a40 Compare April 8, 2025 10:42
When no name has been added yet but user navigates back to list of
applications we specify "not provided" for the name, rather than current
unhandled behaviour that displays a link for the name
This implements latest classes from the
[design system](https://design-system.service.gov.uk/components/task-list/)
which ensures right alignment. I guess this came out of latest front-end
changes?!
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Discussion do not merge This PR should not be merged spike Demo or proposed changes for work on a SPIKE
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant