Add IDV Status to VerifiedName

[rijuma]

Description:

The purpose of this update is to decouple the VerifiedName component in the Support Tools MFE from the verify_student application. The VerifiedName component is used to display a table of verified name information in the Support Tools. A screenshot is attached.

The solution might not be the most optimal, since it would make a call for each individual VerifiedName, but it's made like this due to the verification_attempt_id not having a proper foreign key currently in the database. This shouldn't be a problem since the verified names per user are at most just a few rows. This would be revisited in the near future.

Screenshot

JIRA:

COSMO-442🔒

Pre-Merge Checklist:

• Updated the version number in edx_name_affirmation/__init__.py if these changes are to be released. See OEP-47: Semantic Versioning.
• Described your changes in CHANGELOG.rst.
• Confirmed Github reports all automated tests/checks are passing.
• Approved by at least one additional reviewer.

Post-Merge:

• Create a tag matching the new version number.

[github-actions]

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
edx_name_affirmation
models.py
serializers.py
edx_name_affirmation/tests
test_models.py					85
test_views.py
Project Total

This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action

[MichaelRoytman]

I left a few comments with requested changes, but this looks good overall so far.

[MichaelRoytman]

This looks good. I added three nits that you can take or leave.

[MichaelRoytman]

Nit. idv_attempt_id makes sense to define in a common place because it's used across test methods, but I think making it an attribute of the test class instance, set in a setUp method would be better.

def setUp(self):
    super().setUp()
    self.idv_attempt_id = 3455

and then change references to it in the tests to self.idv_attempt_id.

[rijuma]

idv_attempt_id is being used within the helper method _mocked_model_get(). I'll try to scope it inside the test. Maybe just adding it as a helper method there is better.

[rijuma]

I moved these variables and the helper methods to be defined within VerifiedNameModelTests class so the scope is more limited. Let me know what you think.

[rijuma]

I think we can omit the Missing coverage warning since this is just a mock for testing. I'm not sure why is this a thing on a test file.

[MichaelRoytman]

I'm not sure. I think it's fine to ignore!