1755 - added ssp boolean to stt model

[n0remac]

Summary of Changes

Provide a brief summary of changes
Pull request closes #1755

I have included code to allow the SSP to be modified in the DAC for ease of access in testing.

Demo on Raft:

dev_ssp_file_type_1.mov

dev_ssp_file_type_2.mov

Older local demo:

Added SSP radio buttons to frontend when SSP is added for STT. Passes value to backend through DRF on submit.

Screen.Recording.2022-10-28.at.3.32.50.PM.mov

How to Test

As a Non OFA Admin belonging to an STT with SSP set to yes go to the datafiles page and the File Type section will be visible.

As an OFA Admin the File Type section will become visible when an STT with SSP set to yes is selected.

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• STT Data Analyst can select the type of data report being uploaded
• Radio button section not visible to users of STTs without SSP indicator
• Radio select defaults to TANF
• Heading 1 is modified to read "Data Files" instead of "TANF Data Files"
• Heading 2 prints radio selection between [STT Name] and [Fiscal Year]
• Testing Checklist has been run and all tests pass
• README is updated, if necessary

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

• Are all areas of code introduced in this PR meaningfully tested?
  • 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?
  • Frontend coverage: 94.46% (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)
  • Backend coverage: 93.49% (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

• Are backend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are frontend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• 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

• 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

• 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]

Codecov Report

Merging #2211 (cd2ecce) into develop (53253fb) will decrease coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 80.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2211      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    93.86%   93.80%   -0.07%     
===========================================
  Files           88       88              
  Lines         2396     2405       +9     
  Branches       318      320       +2     
===========================================
+ Hits          2249     2256       +7     
- Misses         110      112       +2     
  Partials        37       37              

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	93.93% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
dev-frontend	93.49% <50.00%> (-0.25%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/data_files/views.py	97.22% <ø> (ø)
tdrs-frontend/src/actions/reports.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
tdrs-frontend/src/components/Routes/Routes.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ntend/src/components/UploadReport/UploadReport.jsx	82.14% <ø> (ø)
tdrs-frontend/src/components/Reports/Reports.jsx	85.33% <50.00%> (-2.00%)	⬇️
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/data_files/serializers.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/stts/models.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/stts/serializers.py	92.30% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 53253fb...cd2ecce. Read the comment docs.

[n0remac]

@reitermb For A11y I am interested to know if anything needs to happen when an OFA Admin selects and STT with SSP access.

[reitermb]

Looks good from an a11y standpoint. Radio buttons behave as radio buttons should, i.e:

• Label is read for the group
• Navigation/selection within the group happens via arrow keys rather than tabbing

No curveballs here so it should be good to go based on conversation with @ttran-hub yesterday.

Video showing behavior:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/28515874/199581520-a2f2349e-19a9-4e27-bc7e-28c5530a503c.mp4

Just one question re: ticket scope, I noticed that we're not changing the heading2 ( search
result) heading based off the TANF / SSP selection. Was there a decision to make that follow-on work? (This is AC #5 in the ticket)

cc @ADPennington

[ADPennington]

Looks good from an a11y standpoint. Radio buttons behave as radio buttons should, i.e:

• Label is read for the group
• Navigation/selection within the group happens via arrow keys rather than tabbing

No curveballs here so it should be good to go based on conversation with @ttran-hub yesterday.

Video showing behavior: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/28515874/199581520-a2f2349e-19a9-4e27-bc7e-28c5530a503c.mp4

Just one question re: ticket scope, I noticed that we're not changing the heading2 ( search result) heading based off the TANF / SSP selection. Was there a decision to make that follow-on work? (This is AC #5 in the ticket)

cc @ADPennington

@n0remac Miles is referring to this AC: Heading 2 prints radio selection between [STT Name] and [Fiscal Year] . It would look like the below screenshot. Pending implementation, we will not need another a11y review because @reitermb @ttran-hub confirm that it should get read-out as part of the heading.

[jtimpe]

Looks really good. Migrations works locally, the TANF vs SSP-MOE radio button works great for submitting files. Just a couple notes.

1. There's an IntegrityError thrown inside the sftp_task because the data_file.filename() currently returns null for SSP submissions. However, I think this will be fixed by As a user, I need the filename for SSP section to be correctly assigned after uploading the file #2154.

2. The radio button works great for uploading data files, but I'm not sure it's used to GET the search results again. I don't know if it qualifies as scope creep on the ticket, but I'm not sure the search functionality is consistent anymore. @ADPennington @andrew-jameson

3. Lastly, Fix/992 notify data file search selection changes #2209 changes how the frontend form works and I think it'd be useful to either update the implementation of the radio button when it merges or create a follow-on ticket to do so.

[andrew-jameson]

Please see #2236 for latest