CLP: FE combine page-specific and reusable Q&As under the same header & accordion group

[jilladams]

Status

[2024-05-06] The BE ticket has been released #17805 [2024-04-24] This ticket blocked by a BE ticket that's in the current sprint.

Description

Q&As can be added to CLPs in 2 ways:

1. Page-specific paragraph type
2. Reusable Q&A content type, as an entity reference.

When we added Reusable Q&A, these were added in separate accordions: https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/content-build/blob/main/src/site/layouts/campaign_landing_page.drupal.liquid#L463.

Laura flagged that re: A11y, these would ideally present in the same accordion, with headers addressed.

Status

[2024-01-11] Solution identified during refinement proposed to Jordan, who signed off. Jill Slacked Danielle to get her sign off, at which time ticket will be updated and moved to refined.

Eng notes

Related tickets:

• 15717 - open ticket for known work we need to do around headers both inside and outside accordions for Q&As

• 10939 - where we added Reusable Q&As to CLPs

• 14814 - previous work around headers

Design note

We did not create a Front-end design for adding Reusable Q&As to CLPs. We should make sure to consult @thejordanwood with plans moving forward.

ACs

• [ ] Vet that displaying page-specific and reusable Q&As in the same accordion is technically feasible, given how each type of Q&A is built / referenced in the template
  • [ ] If so: review & update ACs as needed with PM, A11y, Design
  • [ ] If so: update points assessment after review, and cut a separate ticket to implement if not possible to complete the work within scope of this ticket
  • [ ] If not, flag for Product / A11y and agree on plan to document accordingly in the CLP

[jilladams]

@laflannery FYI for following along

[jilladams]

From refinement:

Original treatment of Page-specific Q&As includes a hard coded H2: "Frequently asked questions" Reusable Q&As come with an optional Header field, that will populate an H2.

Goal: One header, with all Q&As listed below it (We probably need to verify this goal with CAIA?) Proposed solution:

• If a CLP contains a Reusable Q&A group with a Header: show that Header as the H2, with all Q&As below it (both Page Specific and Reusable).
• If no Reusable Q&As, or if Reusable Q&As but the optional Reusable Q&A Header field is empty: show the hard coded Frequently Asked Questions H2

[jilladams]

Let's start with Jordan -- hey @thejordanwood does the proposal in the comment above seem reasonable from a design perspective?

[thejordanwood]

@jilladams This sounds like a good solution to me from a design perspective.

[jilladams]

Nice! Pushed this Q to Danielle T for feedback: https://dsva.slack.com/archives/C52CL1PKQ/p1704929589032639?thread_ts=1703712906.383219&cid=C52CL1PKQ

[DanielleThierryUSDSVA]

Hi! This makes sense to me for the solution. Thank you!

[randimays]

@DanielleThierryUSDSVA Is there a possibility for Campaign Landing Pages to have multiple reusable Q&A sections (with headers) added?

Currently, we don't have any CLPs with reusable Q&A sections added. But it is possible for the page to have multiple labeled reusable Q&A sections

CC @thejordanwood @jilladams

Do we want to determine how this scenario should be handled?

[randimays]

Adding to the above comment: if we do want to determine how to handle that scenario, we would also need to account for a mix of filled and blank headers in any particular order for multiple reusable Q&A groups (i.e. the first one is empty, the second one has a header, the third is empty, etc.)

[jilladams]

From scrum:

• In prod, we have no Reusable Q&As on CLPs. We are thinking into the future.
• The proposed path doesn't account for multiple Reusable Q&A groups with or without headers.
• If we opt to require the currently-optional Reusable Q&A group header, then what do we do with Page-specific Q&As?

So maybe: we are thinking too far ahead, and should put this back in the backlog. Laura vote: She is auditing all products we haven't touched for a11y purposes. There may be a case to make for a design review to follow those a11y reviews, to figure out which products need love, in general.

For now: could limit to 1 Reusable Q&A group. Would require Drupal work. Reusable Q&A groups are reused across content types, so depends how it's used in Drupal. Looking into how RQA work on CLPs and we'll come back to this.

[jilladams]

Daniel discovered: we can limit the cardinality to 1 Reusable Q&A group on CLPs. That will only affect CLPs bc of the how the field is used here. This is easy but will require a config PR, so needs its own time relative to Daniel's priorities. @FranECross are you able to make that ticket?

[FranECross]

I'll get the ticket made today, @jilladams !

[jilladams]

@randimays FYI the CMS change for this is in PR. When we limit to a single object, the shape of the GraphQL data changes. @dsasser 's notes on this are here, for your reference / if you have questions: https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-cms/issues/17805#issuecomment-2080992129

[FranECross]

@randimays I moved this to the Ready column and removed the Blocked label. cc @jilladams

I think this one is okay to move forward with, even considering that the design work is a priority, since it's following Daniel's recent ticket. Please let me know if either of you disagree @jilladams @randimays

[randimays]

@FranECross Sounds good to me 👍🏻 I opened a WIP PR with my older changes in case Josh is the one to pick this up.

[jilladams]

CMS Changes are in prod now.

[randimays]

Pulling in from stretch.

[randimays]

We don't have prod content of a CLP with a reusable Q&A section added. This ticket is blocked due to Tugboat not being able to build: https://dsva.slack.com/archives/C076XFT3VCN/p1717775787969569 and unlikely to close in sprint.

[jilladams]

Unblocked: https://dsva.slack.com/archives/C076XFT3VCN/p1717775787969569

[randimays]

We tested this extensively in a Tugboat pre-merge and Laura reviewed and approved. We won't be able to test this in production since we don't have any reusable Q&As on CLPs right now. Closing as complete, but if anyone feels like we need to do an extra sanity check with staging data, please raise the flag here.