Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

AP-5531/5532: Add appeal court type question 3 and 4 #7540

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 19, 2024

Conversation

jsugarman
Copy link
Contributor

@jsugarman jsugarman commented Dec 16, 2024

What

Add questions 3 and 4 for the ECCT flow - appeals/second appeals questions

Link to story AP-5531 - ECCT question 3
Link to story AP-5532 - ECCT question 4
Link to story AP-5548 - ECCT flow

These questions are the final ones needing answering to determine whether or not to
direct the application to ECCT caseworkers. The flow between them is also in place.

Checklist

Before you ask people to review this PR:

  • Tests and rubocop should be passing: bundle exec rake
  • Github should not be reporting conflicts; you should have recently run git rebase main.
  • The standards in the Git Workflow document on Confluence should be followed
  • There should be no unnecessary whitespace changes. These make diffs harder to read and conflicts more likely.
  • The PR description should say what you changed and why, with a link to the JIRA story.
  • You should have looked at the diff against main and ensured that nothing unexpected is included in your changes.
  • You should have checked that the commit messages say why the change was made.

@jsugarman jsugarman changed the base branch from main to ap-5530/add_original_judge_level-question December 16, 2024 12:57
@jsugarman jsugarman force-pushed the ap-5531/add-appeal_court_type-question branch 9 times, most recently from dc5ae67 to 3ab6ae8 Compare December 17, 2024 08:17
@jsugarman jsugarman force-pushed the ap-5530/add_original_judge_level-question branch from fed766f to 96098c6 Compare December 17, 2024 09:22
@jsugarman jsugarman force-pushed the ap-5531/add-appeal_court_type-question branch from 3ab6ae8 to 38b636c Compare December 17, 2024 09:24
Base automatically changed from ap-5530/add_original_judge_level-question to main December 17, 2024 09:32
@jsugarman jsugarman force-pushed the ap-5531/add-appeal_court_type-question branch from 38b636c to b28678f Compare December 17, 2024 09:34
@jsugarman jsugarman added the ready for review Please review label Dec 17, 2024
@jsugarman jsugarman marked this pull request as ready for review December 17, 2024 10:37
@jsugarman jsugarman requested a review from a team as a code owner December 17, 2024 10:37
Copy link
Contributor

@colinbruce colinbruce left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🤯 at complexity but looks good 👍

@colinbruce colinbruce added approved Approved by code reviewers and removed ready for review Please review labels Dec 18, 2024
@jsugarman jsugarman force-pushed the ap-5531/add-appeal_court_type-question branch from cb52888 to bb5d14d Compare December 18, 2024 08:30
@jsugarman jsugarman added the UAT label Dec 18, 2024
Add the controllers, forms, views and steps to complete
the ECCT question flow as per the designs.
@jsugarman jsugarman force-pushed the ap-5531/add-appeal_court_type-question branch from bb5d14d to 03b04d5 Compare December 18, 2024 16:15
@jsugarman jsugarman added Ready to merge Has passed UAT testing and can be merged into master and removed Remove commit before merge UAT labels Dec 18, 2024
@jsugarman jsugarman merged commit 4d62f3b into main Dec 19, 2024
15 checks passed
@jsugarman jsugarman deleted the ap-5531/add-appeal_court_type-question branch December 19, 2024 09:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Approved by code reviewers Ready to merge Has passed UAT testing and can be merged into master
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants