Feat/3171 nexus integration

andrew-jameson commented 2 months ago

Summary of Changes

Provide a brief summary of changes Pull request closes #3171

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

All steps and success will be captured in pipelines.

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

[x] Pipeline builds don't reach out to the internet by default
[x] Pipeline builds will fail-through to internet repositories if Nexus connection fails
[x] Pipeline build times are reduced
[ ] Testing Checklist has been run and all tests pass
[ ] README is updated, if necessary
[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?
- [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)
- [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

[ ] 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?
[x] 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] commented 1 month ago

Codecov Report

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

Project coverage is 91.52%. Comparing base (ce65bec) to head (e20c4f8). Report is 5 commits behind head on 3046-plg-cloud.

Additional details and impacted files

[![Impacted file tree graph](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3200/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&height=150&src=pr&token=BA04YXPAL9&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech)](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3200?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## 3046-plg-cloud #3200 +/- ## ================================================== + Coverage 91.44% 91.52% +0.08% ================================================== Files 297 297 Lines 8415 8415 Branches 782 608 -174 ================================================== + Hits 7695 7702 +7 Misses 603 603 + Partials 117 110 -7 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3200/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/3200/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) | `91.37% <ø> (+0.09%)` | :arrow_up: | | [dev-frontend](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3200/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=raft-tech) | `92.66% <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 7 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3200/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/3200?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/3200?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 [ce65bec...e20c4f8](https://app.codecov.io/gh/raft-tech/TANF-app/pull/3200?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 commented 1 month ago

@elipe17 please resolve conflict before pushing to qasp

ADPennington commented 1 month ago

@andrew-jameson looks like there's a merge conflict here. is the pipeline running on this branch a sufficient test for this?

andrew-jameson commented 1 month ago

@andrew-jameson looks like there's a merge conflict here. is the pipeline running on this branch a sufficient test for this?

Merge conflict resolved. Yes, pipeline is the only testing needed here as dev's have approved it works in their local environments.

raft-tech / TANF-app