Hdpi 2983 build case details tab#1844
Conversation
… view for grounds of possession
…s-tab # Conflicts: # src/main/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/CaseType.java # src/main/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/PCSCaseView.java # src/main/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/domain/PCSCase.java # src/main/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/view/CaseTabView.java # src/test/java/uk/gov/hmcts/reform/pcs/ccd/view/CaseTabViewTest.java
…red builder classes
…etails into separate shared builder
… tenancy vies in case details tab
…draft data mapping bug
…splayed on submit
gmmagruder
requested review from
andrewdami11,
benouaer and
libanAbdirahman1
and removed request for
a team
| .showCondition(ShowConditions.stateNotEquals(AWAITING_SUBMISSION_TO_HMCTS)) | ||
| .field(PCSCase::getCaseFileView, null, "#ARGUMENT(CaseFileView)"); | ||
|
|
||
| buildCaseDetailsTab(builder); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AC01 says the Case Details tab should appear between the parties tab and Case File View, so could we move the tab ordering around slightly to match that? happy to leave it with you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have shifted the order of the tabs to be parties, details, case file view, summary to be considered with figma
| buildSuspensionOfRightToBuyTabDetails(pcsCase); | ||
| String dateSubmitted = formatSubmittedDate(pcsCase.getDateSubmitted()); | ||
|
|
||
| CaseDetailsTab caseDetailsTab = CaseDetailsTab.builder() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AC02 says blank optional fields should show once a section has been started, but AC10 says sections should not show until answers are provided. At the moment some draft sections appear with only blank values, so the requirement may need clarifying. Should we only show a section once at least one relevant answer exists, then show blank optional fields within that section?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I understand the requirement, sections should remain hidden until there is an answer to one of the sections. After this, the other tables within that section should appear (which may have blank answers if had not yet been answered)
| @NoArgsConstructor | ||
| @AllArgsConstructor | ||
| public class UnderlesseeOrMortgageInformationTabDetails { | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please double check the naming's compared to Figma
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a limitation here. I can't directly number them all and there can be more than one. I also tried to inherit AddressUK for the address but the CCD labels aren't inherited hence why addressKnown is just it's own row.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yes that's fine, I meant for the of text name, Excel shows 'Underlessee or mortgagee 1’s name known?' so without the number, I think it should be 'Underlessee or mortgagee name known?' instead of 'Underlessee or mortgagee’s address for name known?'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yeah - I did catch that earlier but seems like it didn't get pushed. Now fixed.
| @CCD(label = "Claimant type") | ||
| private String claimantType; | ||
|
|
||
| @CCD(label = "Claim against trespassers?") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There seems to be a difference between Figma and Excel, Figma shows to have the label you already have and Excel says to have label 'Is your claim a trespass claim?'. I think it needs clarifying which one to follow
2 participants
Jira link
See HDPI-2983
Change description
Testing done
Unit tests, manual testing on local and preview
Security Vulnerability Assessment
CVE Suppression: Are there any CVEs present in the codebase (either newly introduced or pre-existing) that are being intentionally suppressed or ignored by this commit?
Checklist