Editors should not be able to publish archived facilities

[swirtSJW]

User Story or Problem Statement

As a maintainer of facility data, it is important that editors can not accidentally re-open facilities that have already been closed and properly archived.

This was only caught because I happened to see this error

The editor changed its status and published the page, which would create a really confusing Veteran experience.

~~It is questionable whether a facility should ever be editable at all once it has been archived. We might want to either (need to discuss) A. Prevent save. B. Prevent Edit tab from showing C. Its moderation state can only be altered by content admin/admin through request fulfillment~~

Update: we have experienced at least one instance where a facility was temporarily closed, archived, and then reopened and published. As a result we should probably allow editors to edit archived facilities and archived facility services. This way editors can get the facility "ready" before it reopens.

However, they shouldn't be able to publish them without some sort of request fulfillment just to be sure republishing is the actual desired outcome. Only admins should be able to publish an archived facility and its content.

Acceptance Criteria

• [ ] I expect to disallow access to editing for the following facility content types:
• VAMC Facility Content Type
• Vet Center Facility Content Type
• Vet Center Outstations Facility Content Type
• [ ] I expect this work goes through the CMS collab cycle
• [ ] I expect there is an error message on the screen that tells editors to go visit the KB article to learn why they cannot edit

Veteran-centered

• [x] Single source of truth: Increase reliability and consistency of content on VA.gov by providing a single source of truth.
• [ ] Accessible, plain language: Provide guardrails and guidelines to ensure content quality.
• [ ] Purposely structured content: Ensure Content API can deliver content whose meaning matches its structure.
• [x] Content lifecycle governance: Produce tools, processes and policies to maintain content quality throughout its lifecycle.

Editor-centered

• [ ] Purpose-driven: Create an opportunity to involve the editor community in VA’s mission and content strategy goals.
• [x] Efficient: Remove distractions and create clear, straightforward paths to get the job done.
• [ ] Approachable: Offer friendly guidance over authoritative instruction.
• [ ] Consistent: Reduce user’s mental load by allowing them to fall back on pattern recognition to complete tasks.
• [ ] Empowering: Provide clear information to help editors make decisions about their work.

CMS Team

Please check the team(s) that will do this work.

• [ ] Program
• [ ] Platform CMS Team
• [ ] Sitewide Crew
• [ ] ⭐️ Sitewide CMS
• [ ] ⭐️ Public Websites
• [x] ⭐️ Facilities
• [ ] ⭐️ User support

[dsinla]

Suggestion: If publish state is archive, and they're non admin, dont display Save button - or- Remove Edit tab?

@dsinla Spin up corresponding Ux ticket.

[Dottisea]

Add a spike ticket for discovery on this workflow - discover and document

[JayDarnell]

I've updated this ticket to be slightly more accurate based on recent facility help desk work. However, some refinement is still needed in terms of agreeing upon the most effective solution for the problem.

[kmariepat-cityfriends]

@kmariepat-cityfriends talk with CMS team about driving the decision for editor experience when they cant edit things, this card will live on for facilities as strictly implementation

[davidmpickett]

Here's another ticket that has some slightly different nuance, but seems very related https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-cms/issues/11481

[davidmpickett]

And also: https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-cms/issues/11778

[davidmpickett]

And here's an issue for improving a related KB Article https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-cms/issues/11243

[timcosgrove]

This could easily be implemented as a VAMC Facility-specific workflow that disallows an Archive -> Published or Archive -> Draft transition, or else restricts that transition to admins.

[davidmpickett]

The work done in #15869 has created a clear path forward to implementing this. Consider as a possible Q1 ticket? @xiongjaneg @swirtSJW @omahane

[omahane]

The work done in #15869 has created a clear path forward to implementing this. Consider as a possible Q1 ticket? @xiongjaneg @swirtSJW @omahane

When we do so, here's some guidance: https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-cms/issues/15869#issuecomment-1863191934

[xiongjaneg]

See Slack thread on timing/order

[mmiddaugh]

This should also apply to VBA facilities

[davidmpickett]

This should also apply to VBA facilities

It already does. 😎 They were the first content type to get migrated over to the Restrictive Archive Workflow. That was completed in #15869.

[omahane]

@xiongjaneg I recommend we change this to "Editors should not be able to publish archived facilities," given that the Restricted Archive workflow allows editors to edit archived nodes, but not to publish them.