As an Industry Reporter, I want a step to review my Facility information so that it is accurate for the current report

[suhafa]

Description:

After reviewing Operation-level information, Industry Reporters need to review some facility-level information to ensure it is accurate for the purposes of filing a report. Much of this information (if not all?) comes from Registration. For LFO's in particular, the list of facilities (#197 ) needs to be up to date in order to properly review information at this step. It may look different for SFOs. Discussions are on-going.

Facility Information includes:

• Facility Name
• Facility Type
• Facility BCGHGID (non-editable)
• List of Products (with relevant ones selected as chosen in registration)
• List of Activities (with relevant ones selected as chosen in registration)

Wireframe

Acceptance Criteria:

Given I am a reporter When I start a report, and have already reviewed Operation Information and my list of facilities (if applicable) Then the first step of the report is to confirm my facility information

Given I am a reporter When I confirm my facility information Then the facility information I just confirmed is included in the report

Development Checklist:

• [ ] ~Report versioning scheme is figured out~ done in #196
• [ ] Facility Name & type can be edited
• [ ] Products can be checked/unchecked
• [ ] Checked products are saved to the erc.report_facility_products table
• [ ] Unchecked products are deleted from the erc.report_facility_products table
• [ ] Checked activities are saved to the erc.report_facility_activities table
• [ ] Unchecked activities are deleted from the erc.report_facility_activities table
• [ ] Meets the DOD

Definition of Ready (Note: If any of these points are not applicable, mark N/A)

• [ ] User story is included
• [ ] User role and type are identified
• [ ] Acceptance criteria are included
• [ ] Wireframes are included (if required)
• [ ] Design / Solution is accepted by Product Owner
• [ ] Dependencies are identified (technical, business, regulatory/policy)
• [ ] Story has been estimated (under 13 pts)

Definition of Done (Note: If any of these points are not applicable, mark N/A)

• [ ] Acceptance criteria are tested by the CI pipeline
• [ ] UI meets accessibility requirements
• [ ] Configuration changes are documented, documentation and designs are updated
• [ ] Passes code peer-review
• [ ] Passes QA of Acceptance Criteria with verification in Dev and Test
• [ ] Ticket is ready to be merged to main branch
• [ ] Can be demoed in Sprint Review
• [ ] Bugs or future work cards are identified and created
• [ ] Reviewed and approved by Product Owner

Blocked By

Blocked by #196

Notes:

-

[mikevespi]

It would be helpful to know a little bit more about the context / workding of what we're asking for in registration part 2. For example is the wording asking for the information that is current or relevant for the reporting period, are we asking for complete activity lists or something more loose like "main activity". The distinctions are most impactful when we look at sales and transfers, or when there's a correction to be made to something we show them.

[pbastia]

Is this for multiple facilities in an LFO? Does this need to reflect that we're confirming the entire composition of an LFO?

[pbastia]

This is not blocked by #196, I'll remove the blocker @rdromey @patriciarussellCAS

[patriciarussellCAS]

Still to be confirmed: Will this page look different for SFOs vs LFOs? We still want to keep this page as the first step of reporting, but if there are fields that would be redundant (i.e. they are the same in "review operation information" as they are here, we could hide them) We should have more clarity on this after user testing.