icgc-argo / dac-api

Development of the Data Access Control API
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
0 stars 0 forks source link

🐛 Requested Revisions did not unlock the correct sections #58

Closed kcullion closed 3 years ago

kcullion commented 3 years ago

Describe the bug

When I used postman to request revisions, I revised to open the applicant, institutional rep, ethics, and signature sections. For DACO-51. But when I look at the application when logged in as the applicant, I only see two sections unlocked for edits

image

When going to the get applications endpiont, it shows the Institutional Rep section as locked: image

Steps To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behaviour:

  1. Go to https://dac.qa.argo.cancercollaboratory.org/applications/DACO-51?section=terms
  2. Have a look at the sections that are open for revisions.

Expected behaviour

image

blabadi commented 3 years ago

I think the second point

the sign and the submit section should always have an orange pencil icon but be disabled until the user interacts with all other revision sections. When it's enabled and the user uploads a new file, that orange pencil icon would change to a green pencil until they resubmit. 

is a front end bug

kcullion commented 3 years ago

yes @blabadi you are correct - sorry this is part of another ticket that hasn't been done yet (https://github.com/icgc-argo/dac-ui/issues/96) I will remove it from your ticket

kcullion commented 3 years ago

I tried with a new application and unlocked all possible sections and it worked this time. Thanks @blabadi !

Question, the API allowed me to leave some of the revision details blank for a "true" - but that's ok right as that validation happens on the front end?

blabadi commented 3 years ago

it won't harm to add extra validation on the backend too, but since we trust that our reviewers won't hack the UI this can be considerd less urgent than say missing validation in the application forms

kcullion commented 3 years ago

@blabadi yes good point. I've moved the ticket, no need to add extra validation!