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

Refactored ACET's "Yes(C)" definition for simplicity #3535

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 22, 2023

Conversation

randywoods
Copy link
Collaborator

Got rid of answerButtonDefs - it wasn't being used

🗣 Description

ACET's "Yes(C)" should only be applied in the ACET skin. The answer definition was refactored into the main structure with a skin property to simplify this and keep the answer definition where you expect it to be.
The old answerDefs collection has been removed -- it hasn't been used for awhile and should be removed.
The answer lookup was tweaked a bit to account for any "skinned" answer options (ACET's Yes(C) being the only one currently).

💭 Motivation and context

🧪 Testing

✅ Pre-approval checklist

  • This PR has an informative and human-readable title.
  • Changes are limited to a single goal - eschew scope creep!
  • All future TODOs are captured in issues, which are referenced
    in code comments.
  • All relevant type-of-change labels have been added.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • These code changes follow cisagov code standards.
  • All relevant repo and/or project documentation has been updated
    to reflect the changes in this PR.
  • Tests have been added and/or modified to cover the changes in this PR.
  • All new and existing tests pass.

✅ Pre-merge checklist

  • Revert dependencies to default branches.
  • Finalize version.

✅ Post-merge checklist

  • Create a release.

Got rid of answerButtonDefs - it wasn't being used
@jekuipers jekuipers merged commit 180ab8d into develop Sep 22, 2023
2 checks passed
@jekuipers jekuipers deleted the feature/refactor-answer-opts branch September 22, 2023 23:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants