feat(app-rfi): use DPL DataSource

[scott-williams-az]

Description

Links

• Unity reference site
• JIRA ticket
• Unity Design Kit

Checklist

• [ ] Unity project successfully builds from root yarn install & yarn build
• [ ] Commits do not contain multiple scopes
• [ ] Add/updated examples
• [ ] Add/updated READMEs/docs
• [ ] No new console errors
• [ ] Accessibility checks

Browsers

• [ ] Chrome
• [ ] Safari
• [ ] Firefox
• [ ] Edge

Images

[mlsamuelson]

@scott-williams-az In side-by-side testing of this update against the latest static site build, I'm noticing discrepancies in Areas of Interest (and by extension Programs of Interest) when using the college prop. I'm suspecting that has to do with the new partial ownership concept related to degrees and the normalizing here: https://github.com/ASU/asu-unity-stack/pull/1228/files#diff-5c91b3486d623bfbf07bec87e666de652938c9f1e9586278468fc15a581b4f4dR37 because between the old and new approach, I'm seeing more coming back - which I'd expect with partial ownership now. When using the college code CLW however, I get the following Areas of Interest

• Law, Justice and Public Service
• Social and Behavioral Sciences

In the update, we get four Areas of Interest but only the first from the list above is among them. The Programs of Interest options are also vastly different. I'd like to account for this difference and determine if we need to reach out to the Degree Search team for confirmation. It may be that with our update we need to document that use of the college prop will be affected and site owners need to adapt - i.e. we add details to the release notes when this ships with WS2.

Still testing, but another item I've noted is a regression on the Certs/Minors display. The Request information on this program by sending an email to... message isn't displaying in the Cert story.

[scott-williams-az]

@mlsamuelson @davidornelas11 I am curious if adding a snapshot of options would be helpful or if it is "information overload" here is a screenshot.

• I don't think it is appropriate to spam the API and populate Storybook fields dynamically.
• Possible idea could be to populate latest options with a script we would run manually
• if the SB control is a dropdown, and the desired option is not in the list, user would need to alter the URL to insert custom value (is that an acceptable compromise?)

[mlsamuelson]

Yeah, that is a lot of information to present. Sounds like there's two things on the table:

1. to present the options in the description or not
2. populating the controls with the options

For 1, what about simply displaying the DPL API URL where the user can refer to for options. And then for 2, keeping it simple and have it just be a string field. This way we don't deal with snapshot drift and devs having to manually alter urls to test... it's a "keep it simple" approach.