Skip to content

Code Coverage Increase - Supplemental Claims Redesign#27786

Open
james-taggart-kind wants to merge 13 commits intomasterfrom
bdr/139369-code-coverage-increase
Open

Code Coverage Increase - Supplemental Claims Redesign#27786
james-taggart-kind wants to merge 13 commits intomasterfrom
bdr/139369-code-coverage-increase

Conversation

@james-taggart-kind
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@james-taggart-kind james-taggart-kind commented Apr 15, 2026

Keep your PR as a Draft until it's ready for Platform review. A PR is ready for Platform review when it has a teammate approval and tests, linting, and settings checks pass CI. See these tips on how to avoid common delays in getting your PR merged.

Summary

  • This work is behind a feature toggle (flipper): YES/NO

No

  • (Summarize the changes that have been made to the platform)

Added testing coverage for supplemental claims backend.

  • (If bug, how to reproduce)

No bug just increasing test coverage.

  • (What is the solution, why is this the solution?)

This allows our team to get familiar with supplemental claims redesign and also make sure we have a healthy baseline to prevent regressions in the future accompanied with manual testing this first time. For this PR we made sure we had 100% coverage and also we had meaningful tests for all of the supplemental claims changes.

  • (Which team do you work for, does your team own the maintenance of this component?)

Benefits decision reviews.

  • (If introducing a flipper, what is the success criteria being targeted?)

No flipper

Related issue(s)

  • Link to ticket created in va.gov-team repo OR screenshot of Jira ticket if your team uses Jira

department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team#139741

  • Link to previous change of the code/bug (if applicable)

NA

  • Link to epic if not included in ticket

NA

Testing done

  • New code is covered by unit tests
  • Describe what the old behavior was prior to the change

Same behavior just increased coverage

  • Describe the steps required to verify your changes are working as expected. Exclusively stating 'Specs run' is NOT acceptable as appropriate testing

  • If this work is behind a flipper:

    • Tests need to be written for both the flipper on and flipper off scenarios. Docs.
    • What is the testing plan for rolling out the feature?

Screenshots

Note: Optional

What areas of the site does it impact?

(Describe what parts of the site are impacted andifcode touched other areas)

NA, just a test update. Tests are for supplemental claims.

Acceptance criteria

  • I fixed|updated|added unit tests and integration tests for each feature (if applicable).
  • No error nor warning in the console.
  • Events are being sent to the appropriate logging solution
  • Documentation has been updated (link to documentation)
  • No sensitive information (i.e. PII/credentials/internal URLs/etc.) is captured in logging, hardcoded, or specs
  • Feature/bug has a monitor built into Datadog (if applicable)
  • If app impacted requires authentication, did you login to a local build and verify all authenticated routes work as expected
  • I added a screenshot of the developed feature

Requested Feedback

(OPTIONAL)What should the reviewers know in addition to the above. Is there anything specific you wish the reviewer to assist with. Do you have any concerns with this PR, why?

@james-taggart-kind james-taggart-kind changed the title Bdr/139369 code coverage increase Code Coverage Increase - Supplemental Claims Redesign Apr 21, 2026
@james-taggart-kind james-taggart-kind marked this pull request as ready for review April 21, 2026 19:37
@james-taggart-kind james-taggart-kind requested review from a team as code owners April 21, 2026 19:37
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 21, 2026 19:37
@james-taggart-kind james-taggart-kind self-assigned this Apr 21, 2026
@james-taggart-kind james-taggart-kind added the SC Supplemental Claims (Decision Reviews) label Apr 21, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR adds automated test coverage for the Decision Reviews Supplemental Claims backend (normalization logic, helper utilities, and controller behaviors) to establish a baseline for regression prevention.

Changes:

  • Added specs for Supplemental Claim request body normalization behaviors (VA/private evidence formatting, schema normalization, redesign payload gating).
  • Added specs for DecisionReviews::V1::Helpers utilities used by Supplemental Claims (encryption, header creation, data transforms).
  • Expanded SupplementalClaimsController controller specs to cover show, create, and several private helper methods.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

File Description
modules/decision_reviews/spec/services/v1/supplemental_claims/request_body_normalizer_spec.rb Adds coverage for evidence formatting and redesign-related normalization paths.
modules/decision_reviews/spec/lib/v1/helpers_spec.rb Adds coverage for helper methods used in SC submissions (encryption, transforms, header generation).
modules/decision_reviews/spec/controllers/supplemental_claims_controller_spec.rb Adds controller coverage for show/create flows and private helper methods used during submission.

Comment thread modules/decision_reviews/spec/lib/v1/helpers_spec.rb Outdated
Comment thread modules/decision_reviews/spec/lib/v1/helpers_spec.rb
Comment thread modules/decision_reviews/spec/lib/v1/helpers_spec.rb
Comment thread modules/decision_reviews/spec/controllers/supplemental_claims_controller_spec.rb Outdated
Comment thread modules/decision_reviews/spec/controllers/supplemental_claims_controller_spec.rb Outdated
Comment thread modules/decision_reviews/spec/lib/v1/helpers_spec.rb Outdated
Comment thread modules/decision_reviews/spec/lib/v1/helpers_spec.rb
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@asiisii asiisii left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 🚀

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.

5 participants