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

JHoang/17497-rspec-fixes-4 #18994

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 13, 2023
Merged

Conversation

jonathanh-va
Copy link
Contributor

@jonathanh-va jonathanh-va commented Jul 12, 2023

Description

Rspec fixes for branch feature/APPEALS-17497:

  • ./spec/feature/intake/supplemental_claim_spec.rb
  • ./spec/feature/intake/appeal_spec.rb

Acceptance Criteria

  • Code compiles correctly

Best practices

Code Documentation Updates

  • Add or update code comments at the top of the class, module, and/or component.

Tests

Test Coverage

Did you include any test coverage for your code? Check below:

  • RSpec
  • Jest
  • Other

Code Climate

Your code does not add any new code climate offenses? If so why?

  • No new code climate issues added

Monitoring, Logging, Auditing, Error, and Exception Handling Checklist

Monitoring

  • Are performance metrics (e.g., response time, throughput) being tracked?
  • Are key application components monitored (e.g., database, cache, queues)?
  • Is there a system in place for setting up alerts based on performance thresholds?

Logging

  • Are logs being produced at appropriate log levels (debug, info, warn, error, fatal)?
  • Are logs structured (e.g., using log tags) for easier querying and analysis?
  • Are sensitive data (e.g., passwords, tokens) redacted or omitted from logs?
  • Is log retention and rotation configured correctly?
  • Are logs being forwarded to a centralized logging system if needed?

Auditing

  • Are user actions being logged for audit purposes?
  • Are changes to critical data being tracked ?
  • Are logs being securely stored and protected from tampering or exposing protected data?

Error Handling

  • Are errors being caught and handled gracefully?
  • Are appropriate error messages being displayed to users?
  • Are critical errors being reported to an error tracking system (e.g., Sentry, ELK)?
  • Are unhandled exceptions being caught at the application level ?

Exception Handling

  • Are custom exceptions defined and used where appropriate?
  • Is exception handling consistent throughout the codebase?
  • Are exceptions logged with relevant context and stack trace information?
  • Are exceptions being grouped and categorized for easier analysis and resolution?

@jonathanh-va jonathanh-va changed the title appeal_spec & supplemental_claim_spec fixes JHoang/17497-rspec-fixes-4 Jul 12, 2023
@jonathanh-va jonathanh-va marked this pull request as ready for review July 13, 2023 14:38
@HunJerBAH HunJerBAH merged commit 379ff92 into feature/APPEALS-17497 Jul 13, 2023
8 of 10 checks passed
@HunJerBAH HunJerBAH deleted the JHoang/17497-rspec-fixes-4 branch July 13, 2023 14:41
youfoundmanesh pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 20, 2023
* appeal_spec & supplemental_claim_spec fixes

* comments

* removed binding.pry

---------

Co-authored-by: Jonathan Hoang <trinhjoanthan.hoang@va.gov>
Co-authored-by: HunJerBAH <99915461+HunJerBAH@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants