Skip to content

SSCSFT-136 show confidentiality direction type dynamically#5066

Open
hemantasharma1129 wants to merge 5 commits intomasterfrom
sscsft-136-record-direction-notice-confidentiality-decision
Open

SSCSFT-136 show confidentiality direction type dynamically#5066
hemantasharma1129 wants to merge 5 commits intomasterfrom
sscsft-136-record-direction-notice-confidentiality-decision

Conversation

@hemantasharma1129
Copy link
Contributor

### SSCSFT-136

Change description

  1. Added 2 new Direction Types in sscs-common via this PR.
  2. If the case data is has a InterlocReferralreason as Confidentiality, return the 2 new Confidentiality Direction Type which will be shown on the Direction Type drop down.

Testing done

Happy Path
Tested for a case with InterlocReferral Reason as Confidentiality. Both new direction types were returned.

Unhappy Path

  1. Tested for a case with InterlocReferral Reason as anything other than Confidentiality. None of the new direction types were returned.
  2. Tested for a case without InterlocReferral Reason. None of the new direction types were returned.

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?

  • Yes
  • No

Checklist

  • commit messages are meaningful and follow good commit message guidelines
  • README and other documentation has been updated / added (if needed)
  • tests have been updated / new tests has been added (if needed)
  • Does this PR introduce a breaking change

@hemantasharma1129 hemantasharma1129 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 17, 2026 14:10
@github-actions
Copy link

CCD diff report

No change

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 17, 2026

Integration Tests results

   84 files  ±0     84 suites  ±0   10m 49s ⏱️ ±0s
1 507 tests ±0  1 499 ✅ ±0  8 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
1 510 runs  ±0  1 502 ✅ ±0  8 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 0623bbd. ± Comparison against base commit b5dbaff.

This pull request removes 2 and adds 2 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.
uk.gov.hmcts.reform.sscs.bulkscan.controllers.SscsBulkScanExceptionRecordCallback ‑ [1] url=http://localhost:44243/transform-exception-record/, isAuto=false
uk.gov.hmcts.reform.sscs.bulkscan.controllers.SscsBulkScanExceptionRecordCallback ‑ [2] url=http://localhost:44243/transform-scanned-data/, isAuto=true
uk.gov.hmcts.reform.sscs.bulkscan.controllers.SscsBulkScanExceptionRecordCallback ‑ [1] url=http://localhost:38939/transform-exception-record/, isAuto=false
uk.gov.hmcts.reform.sscs.bulkscan.controllers.SscsBulkScanExceptionRecordCallback ‑ [2] url=http://localhost:38939/transform-scanned-data/, isAuto=true

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link
Contributor

@stuart-hmcts stuart-hmcts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm - just one minor comment re. the FT.

Copy link
Contributor

@raghera raghera left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks really good! Just one question.

@hemantasharma1129 hemantasharma1129 force-pushed the sscsft-136-record-direction-notice-confidentiality-decision branch from 1c3f87b to e7cca32 Compare March 5, 2026 09:20
@hmcts-jenkins-j-to-z hmcts-jenkins-j-to-z bot requested a deployment to preview March 5, 2026 11:08 Abandoned
@hemantasharma1129 hemantasharma1129 force-pushed the sscsft-136-record-direction-notice-confidentiality-decision branch from e2ff923 to a4a9235 Compare March 9, 2026 16:18
@hemantasharma1129 hemantasharma1129 force-pushed the sscsft-136-record-direction-notice-confidentiality-decision branch from e4d6574 to 49303ce Compare March 9, 2026 17:41
@hemantasharma1129 hemantasharma1129 force-pushed the sscsft-136-record-direction-notice-confidentiality-decision branch from 49303ce to 42a0903 Compare March 10, 2026 09:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants