You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After chatting with the front-end folks, they plan to send us every agency nested inside of an agency, so we don't need to keep the confusing agency prefix approach we have.
## Summary
Fixes#1494
### Time to review: __2 mins__
## Changes proposed
Adjust the logic for filtering by agency to be an exact match instead of
the prior "starts with" logic.
## Context for reviewers
This adjustments comes out of a recent discussion with our front-end
folks. Turns out they intend to pass us every agency for sub-agencies
(eg. `HHS-123`, `HHS-456`, etc). I had implemented sub-agency logic
assuming we'd want prefixes, which is clunky. This makes the logic more
intuitive by just being a simple match.
Note that previously the agencies were also case-insensitive which is no
longer here, but that also isn't really necessary.
## Additional information
Updated a few tests that assumed prior logic - nothing too significant
here
Summary
After chatting with the front-end folks, they plan to send us every agency nested inside of an agency, so we don't need to keep the confusing agency prefix approach we have.
We can change the query from:
to
and fix tests accordingly
Acceptance criteria
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: