Closed lmcclung closed 2 years ago
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
@forgeuxGH5 @severinbeauvais
Buttons:
Staff Payment Modal Regarding the Staff Payment modal, it would look like the same as our others except with the checkbox and a general "Submit" button (instead of "Submit Name Request") like so:
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
obsolete comment deleted
From Andre's comment in 9221:
The following companies have been created for testing in dev as Staff: https://dev.bcregistry.ca/business/BC0870820 https://dev.bcregistry.ca/business/BC0870821 https://dev.bcregistry.ca/business/BC0870822
Using the routing slip to pay an alteration or a correction would display the message:
222222222
- Not active
123123123
- Not enough balance: $9.00
232323232
- Linked
Routing Slips can be edited/created on https://fas-dev.apps.silver.devops.gov.bc.ca/home
The SonarCloud Code Analysis check is failing due to excessive code duplication in AR/COA/COD/CORR filings as they are similar (and always have been but I just touched their code).
I do not know any easy or clean solutions to this issue, but I did a bit of research and it appears some solutions are becoming available. This work will be in a future ticket: 10572
Sample screenshot from Dev:
UXA Finding in https://dev.bcregistry.ca/ These visual differences were observed compared to the visual design attached in the comment above.
Logic wise, I'm not getting the individual error messages for each FAS slip scenario. They're all erroring out the same way.
@yuisotozaki - Severin decided to keep the navy blue bar header which is consistent with the other modals, so thats ok the way he has it. And we have started to migrate the primary button to the right instead of left side (which makes sense especially when it moves you along the path), so i'm good with these differences.
I believe the fields/error validations themselves are already part of a shared component so that's probably also ok to leave as is (i keep hearing Kaine in my head saying - save money, save money, haha).
Then sounds like the visual aspect of UXA is good to go.
The error message, however, needs QA testing. Does this mean it passes UXA?
Thanks Tracey, all you said is correct.
As for the error dialog, you're not actually seeing the Pay Error dialog. What you're seeing is the Save Error dialog, due to a back end data bug. Try it again with a Coop or other Ben. Or look at the screenshot I posted above.
Got the error scenarios. Those expected scenarios pass UXA.
There is an additional scenario that's failing.
222222222
account and try to pay -> get the error -> acknowledge the errorIt appears that a draft filing is saved when it errors out and the UI doesn't realize that it's the very same draft the user already has open.
~Hmm, the code should handle that but I'll have a look. It may be that the filing id is not available when there is a pay error.~
Update: This is a bug in the Filings UI. I will fix it ASAP as part of THIS ticket.
@lmcclung FYI
The bug above has been fixed, verified, and deployed to Dev and Test.
RFQA!
Error messages for Routing Slip in Business Registry/Name Request
TO DO:
Expected Behavior - Acceptance Criteria
Scenario 1: Routing Slip Not Active
Scenario 2: Routing Slip in linked
Scenario 3: Routing Slip doesn't have enough balance
Scenario 4: Routing Slip Not found
Proposed Design
The below UX Pin has a design approach https://preview.uxpin.com/76da32cd3abd1eb16c96507294189fbd7bee9140#/pages/140210137/simulate/sitemap
Deadline
If possible in the next sprint, otherwise, the end of Oct should be OK.
Impact if deadline not met
Not a show stopper, but would be good to complete the story from our side(end to end)
Contact person
John Lane