Add service discoverability for backend routes

[jtimpe]

Summary of Changes

Pull request closes #2973

• Uses the same approach as #2903 did for kibana/clamav, applied to the backend and kibana_auth_check routes.

How to Test

1. Deploy to a cloud.gov environment
2. Load the frontend and click the log in link. You should navigate to login.gov login
3. Restart the backend app in cloud.gov.
4. Reload the frontend. Click the log in link. You should still navigate to login.gov login

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• [ ] fix the service discoverability bug
• [ ] lfrohlich and/or adpennington confirmed that ACs are met.

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

• Are all areas of code introduced in this PR meaningfully tested?
  • [x] If this PR introduces backend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
  • [x] If this PR introduces frontend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
• Are code coverage minimums met?
  • [x] Frontend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)
  • [ ] Backend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

• [x] Are backend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• [x] Are frontend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• [x] Are code maintainability principles being followed?

Deliverable 4: Accessible

• [ ] Does this PR complete the epic?
• [ ] Are links included to any other gov-approved PRs associated with epic?
• [ ] Does PR include documentation for Raft's a11y review?
• [ ] Did automated and manual testing with iamjolly and ttran-hub using Accessibility Insights reveal any errors introduced in this PR?

Deliverable 5: Deployed

• [x] Was the code successfully deployed via automated CircleCI process to development on Cloud.gov?

Deliverable 6: Documented

• [ ] Does this PR provide background for why coding decisions were made?
• [ ] If this PR introduces backend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• [ ] If this PR introduces frontend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• [ ] If this PR introduces dependencies, are their licenses documented?
• [ ] Can reviewer explain and take ownership of these elements presented in this code review?

Deliverable 7: Secure

• [x] Does the OWASP Scan pass on CircleCI?
• [ ] Do manual code review and manual testing detect any new security issues?
• [ ] If new issues detected, is investigation and/or remediation plan documented?

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

• [ ] the purpose of the research
• [ ] methods used to conduct the research
• [ ] who participated in the research
• [ ] what was tested and how
• [ ] impact of research on TDP
• [ ] (if applicable) final design mockups produced for TDP development

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 93.11%. Comparing base (8d5def9) to head (229c32c). Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/2989?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## develop #2989 +/- ## ======================================== Coverage 93.11% 93.11% ======================================== Files 272 272 Lines 7055 7055 Branches 591 591 ======================================== Hits 6569 6569 Misses 392 392 Partials 94 94 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/2989/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [dev-backend](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/2989/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) | `93.19% <ø> (ø)` | | | [dev-frontend](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/2989/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) | `92.62% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. ------ [Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/2989?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech). > **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) > `Δ = absolute (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data` > Powered by [Codecov](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/2989?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech). Last update [b2edac9...229c32c](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/2989?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech).

[jtimpe]

Worked for me locally. Has this been tested in a deployed env?

@elipe17 yes, but i would appreciate a second look. happy to deploy it to raft again for you if you'd like