Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

angela-tran · 2025-02-13T03:10:38Z

This PR implements the functionality where, when verifying eligibility in-person, the user must agree they have used the specific eligibility criteria that is shown.

Screen recordings of behavior

(GIFs play only once. You can refresh the page to replay I think.)

User-facing behavior (for transit agency staff user)

Checkbox changes based on selected flow

Checkbox resets if user changes selected flow

Browser validation messages

User-facing behavior (for superusers and Cal-ITP staff users)

We currently only have in-person policies for the Older Adult, Medicare Cardholder, and Courtesy Card flows, so any other flows that were marked as supporting In-person enrollment will be automatically updated to have that option unchecked.
When attempting to add In-person as a supported enrollment method, that will only work for the three flows mentioned above. For any other flows, an error message will be shown:

Error message when attempting to add `In-person` to a flow without a policy

Testing locally

Data migration

Start on main branch, load sample fixtures with ./bin/reset_db.sh
- Launch app, go to /admin, and log in as cst-user. At /in_person/eligibility, you'll see the 5 in-person flows for CST.
- Log out and log back in as a superuser. Look over your EnrollmentFlows and notice the In-person checkbox is checked.
Checkout this branch (git checkout feat/in-person-policies) and run the migration with ./bin/init.sh
- Launch app, go to /admin, and log in as cst-user. At /in_person/eligibility, you'll see only "Older Adult" and "Medicare Cardholder".
- Log out and log back in as a superuser. Looking at the EnrollmentFlows, only the "Older Adult" and "Medicare Cardholder" flows have In-person checked.

`EnrollmentFlow` validation enforces that in-person flows have a policy

Try to check In-person for a flow and save it. If it is not one of the flows with an in-person eligibility policy, you will get an error message.

a11y

I tested going through the form with only keyboard interaction, and the tab order / interactions worked as I expected.

I also inspected the accessibility tree and observed that when the checkboxes go from hidden to shown, the accessibility tree makes sense, i.e. it only shows the checkbox that is currently displayed.

github-actions · 2025-02-13T03:22:15Z

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
benefits/core/models
enrollment.py
benefits/in_person
forms.py
benefits/in_person/context
__init__.py
eligibility.py
Project Total

_{This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action}

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py

benefits/in_person/context.py

the mocked agency used by the test did not have any flows, and the test was passing as a false positive. use the `mocked_session_flow` fixture so that the agency has a flow. this is similar to the fix in 3bf128c.

change the form to have a checkbox for each flow. when the user selects the radio button for a flow, the corresponding checkbox is shown, and the other checkboxes are hidden. implement a template specifically for this form.

also fix spelling typo on copy for checkboxes.

previously we could rely on Django's default handling of the single `BooleanField`, but since we have multiple checkboxes now, and we don't want to require all of them, we need to implement our own logic to require that the checkbox that matches the selected flow was checked. also added Javascript to the template to show the checkbox for the case where the form didn't pass back-end validation and therefore we show the form again with what the user had selected.

consumer is responsible for handling any error that might occur from the key not being found.

data migration handles removing "in_person" from flows that do not have a policy in the `in_person.context.eligibility_index` dict. `EnrollmentFlow.clean` handles enforcing this rule going forward when creating or editing flows.

angela-tran · 2025-02-21T22:04:49Z

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py

@@ -257,8 +258,12 @@ def enrollment_success_template(self):
        else:
            return self.enrollment_success_template_override or f"{prefix}--{self.transit_agency.slug}.html"

+    @property
+    def in_person_eligibility_context(self):
+        return in_person_context.eligibility_index[self.system_name].dict()


@thekaveman - to follow up on #2698 (comment):

I rewrote this so that it is non-defensive and simply looks up the key. Consumers of this property are responsible for knowing what to do, whether that's to let the exception bubble up or to handle it.

Here's the diff: 21e0f69

That commit shows how InPersonEligibilityForm consumes the property. EnrollmentFlow.clean consumes it in a similar way.

Ah, I see... yeah I don't think this is the specific use-case I was thinking about, and I didn't understand the difference in what we were talking about. I agree this change isn't as clean.

The use-case I was thinking about (related to #2698 (comment)): Why was it possible to load a fixture with a bad system_name? I expected this to have failed on import: #2698 (comment)

But I think you described why this is: #2698 (comment). And then it was fixed anyway by adding agency_card to the enum...

Sorry, I mixed up a few different things in that comment. But really I was wondering: why should we even be able to import bad data like that? And does that mean it is somehow possible to get a bad value in there from the Admin? I think both of those are probably answered by your explanation.

angela-tran · 2025-02-21T22:13:06Z

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py

+                    in_person_eligibility_context = None
+
+                if not in_person_eligibility_context:
+                    errors.append(ValidationError(f"In-person eligibility context not found for: {self.system_name}"))


Open to suggestions on this error message 😅

I guess it would help if it told the user some sort of action to take, like to contact a dev or to uncheck In-person.

Hmmm... yeah, this is a technically accurate error message! But since we show it to end-users, I think we probably want something more friendly here 😅

I agree with your action-oriented take, maybe something like:

{system_name} not configured for In-person. Please uncheck to continue."

angela-tran self-assigned this Feb 13, 2025

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

benefits/core/models/enrollment.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

benefits/in_person/context.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch 5 times, most recently from 18443be to 0ec5b92 Compare February 19, 2025 01:56

This was referenced Feb 20, 2025

Chore: run pre-commit on all files #2696

Merged

Refactor: choices for EnrollmentFlow.system_name #2698

Merged

Admin: In-Person - View policy #2632

Open

fix(test): fix set up for an in-person eligibility form test

17beaf8

the mocked agency used by the test did not have any flows, and the test was passing as a false positive. use the `mocked_session_flow` fixture so that the agency has a flow. this is similar to the fix in 3bf128c.

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch 2 times, most recently from 5dccd3e to 10f0355 Compare February 21, 2025 19:21

feat: add field to EnrollmentFlow for in-person eligibility context

8d37703

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch 3 times, most recently from c9e8c25 to 785d3b6 Compare February 21, 2025 19:50

angela-tran added 4 commits February 21, 2025 20:12

refactor(style): use d-none class rather than inline style

082addd

refactor(template): avoid duplication of HTML for form group

dd7e06d

feat: update custom-validity messages for form input fields

0a4f797

also fix spelling typo on copy for checkboxes.

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch from 785d3b6 to c818c77 Compare February 21, 2025 20:13

refactor: have the model property look up the context non-defensively

21e0f69

consumer is responsible for handling any error that might occur from the key not being found.

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch from c818c77 to 21e0f69 Compare February 21, 2025 20:17

angela-tran added 2 commits February 21, 2025 20:35

refactor(context): use package structure for consistency

87f9644

angela-tran force-pushed the feat/in-person-policies branch from 1f8f25e to d27a53e Compare February 21, 2025 21:10

angela-tran marked this pull request as ready for review February 21, 2025 22:07

angela-tran requested a review from a team as a code owner February 21, 2025 22:07

angela-tran commented Feb 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angela-tran Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thekaveman Feb 21, 2025

angela-tran Feb 21, 2025

thekaveman Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Feat: in-person eligibility policies #2689

Conversation

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025 • edited Loading

Screen recordings of behavior

User-facing behavior (for transit agency staff user)

User-facing behavior (for superusers and Cal-ITP staff users)

Testing locally

Data migration

EnrollmentFlow validation enforces that in-person flows have a policy

a11y

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2025 • edited Loading

Coverage report

angela-tran Feb 21, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thekaveman Feb 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

angela-tran Feb 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thekaveman Feb 21, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

angela-tran commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

`EnrollmentFlow` validation enforces that in-person flows have a policy

github-actions bot commented Feb 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

angela-tran Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thekaveman Feb 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading