3023 whitelist ip

[raftmsohani]

Summary of Changes

Provide a brief summary of changes Pull request closes #3023 _

How to Test

List the steps to test the PR These steps are generic, please adjust as necessary.

cd tdrs-frontend && docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.local.yml up -d
cd tdrs-backend && docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.local.yml up -d 

1. Open http://localhost:3000/ and sign in.
2. Proceed with functional tests as described herein.
3. Test steps should be captured in the demo GIF(s) and/or screenshots below.

   Demo GIF(s) and screenshots for testing procedure

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• [x] The IP address referenced above is whitelisted, so user can access TDP.
• [x] 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?
  • [ ] 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)
  • [x] 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

• [x] 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 93.10%. Comparing base (00ac3d1) to head (b2ba38e). Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3031?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 #3031 +/- ## =========================================== + Coverage 93.05% 93.10% +0.05% =========================================== Files 276 275 -1 Lines 7108 7036 -72 Branches 599 596 -3 =========================================== - Hits 6614 6551 -63 + Misses 399 391 -8 + Partials 95 94 -1 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3031/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/3031/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) | `93.18% <ø> (+0.06%)` | :arrow_up: | | [dev-frontend](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3031/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. [see 1 file with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3031/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) ------ [Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3031?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/3031?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 [c79a3b2...b2ba38e](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3031?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).

[raftmsohani]

Tested on my phone (my phone had an ip address in the new ip range) and I could access. Tried prod, and I could not access.

[raftmsohani]

@ADPennington : Raft has the changes, if you have T-mobile then you should be able to test this. I did the test and it worked.

[ADPennington]

Tested on my phone (my phone had an ip address in the new ip range) and I could access. Tried prod, and I could not access.

thank you! unfortunately we do not have the tools to test this. could you include the relevant logs in this PR @raftmsohani ?

[raftmsohani]

Tested on my phone (my phone had an ip address in the new ip range) and I could access. Tried prod, and I could not access.

thank you! unfortunately we do not have the tools to test this. could you include the relevant logs in this PR @raftmsohani ?

Here, first we try to login to qasp, which doesn't have the whitelisted IP:

As we can see, the ip address is blocked, now let's try RAFT which has the change: