Legal API - Validation (AGM Extension)

[severinbeauvais]

This is very similar to #17940. See that ticket for a complete list of todos.

• do work in main branch
• add new filing type (agmExtension)
• provide "grant on record in the last 12 months" (date) to UI obsolete
• accept new filing type
  • verify business is compatible
  • verify business is in good standing
  • verify logic!!! (protect db from bad filing data) same thing UI does (see Mihai's rules)
  • check feature flag? not in place yet
• database changes:
  • store AGM year
  • store reference date
  • store last extension date for AGM year above (ie, could be a couple of these for the same AGM year) (ask Mihai for rules if unclear)
• As per Linda, we would not have document uploads for this filing.

There is a google doc and the UI design to reference in this for the logic.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XDs2eGScdFWqqG8slsDyTSyIsXJ8Olrq/edit

[jdyck-fw]

Consider doing 2 PRs on this, one for the new filing type and one for the validation.

[jdyck-fw]

Talk to the person doing the UI ticket to help understand the logic. #18273

[Mihai-QuickSilverDev]

Message from Hongjing: "Hi Mihai! Argus thinks we need validation for intended_agm_date at BE as well. I'm a little confused here. Should it not be greater than the current extension expiry date or should it not be greater than the new expiry date we will grant for the extension being requested?"

[Mihai-QuickSilverDev]

@argush3 @chenhongjing

• Hello, the intended_agm_date was added solely on the UI side.
• I don't think we needed this field, Thor did not think either that we would need it.
• We kept it, because it is currently present in the request letters coming to BC Registries.
• But we do not validate on it, is not for us to tell the company when to run the AGM.
• We can just give them extensions, as calculated by the logic, and then we communicate the results.
• If it happens that their intended_agm_date falls outside of the allocated extension, then they would have to make their own decisions.

Please let me know if this approach is acceptable for you, or if we need to meet to discuss this further. Thank you!

[argush3]

Thanks for the detailed reply @Mihai-QuickSilverDev

We can remove this from the BE validation then it sounds like.

[Mihai-QuickSilverDev]

Yes, correct. Please proceed as such!