F25/tyu/additional-info-intake-page #69
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
YashK2005
approved these changes
Nov 6, 2025
Comment on lines
83
to
86
| if "additional_info" in form_data: | ||
| # TODO: let me know if you want this in a process function | ||
| user_data.additional_info = self._trim_text(form_data.get("additional_info")) | ||
|
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is good as is!
UmairHundekar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
## Notion ticket link <!-- Please replace with your ticket's URL --> [Intake Forms - add Additional Information Page](https://www.notion.so/uwblueprintexecs/Intake-Forms-add-Additional-Information-Page-28010f3fb1dc80eb9fd7c59da21872d3?source=copy_link) <!-- Give a quick summary of the implementation details, provide design justifications if necessary --> ## Implementation description Introduces an 'additional_info' field to the intake form process for both participants and volunteers. Updates backend to store and process this field, including database migration, API documentation, and unit tests. Adds a new frontend form component and integrates it into the intake flow, updating type definitions and step logic accordingly. <!-- What should the reviewer do to verify your changes? Describe expected results and include screenshots when appropriate --> ## Steps to test 1. Sign in and fill out intake form 2. At the very end of the intake verify that you can reach the "Additional Info" page (can be left empty) 3. Submit and verify the change is applied in your `users_data` table <!-- Draw attention to the substantial parts of your PR or anything you'd like a second opinion on --> ## What should reviewers focus on? * In `backend/app/services/implementations/intake_form_processor.py` line 84 let me know if a separate processor function should be written. I saw that most of the questions did have processor functions but since this page only is a free written input text box there isn't much logic to abstact, but I'm not against writing one either ## Checklist - [ ] My PR name is descriptive and in imperative tense - [ ] My commit messages are descriptive and in imperative tense. My commits are atomic and trivial commits are squashed or fixup'd into non-trivial commits - [ ] I have run the appropriate linter(s) - [ ] I have requested a review from the PL, as well as other devs who have background knowledge on this PR or who will be building on top of this PR
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Notion ticket link
Intake Forms - add Additional Information Page
Implementation description
Introduces an 'additional_info' field to the intake form process for both participants and volunteers. Updates backend to store and process this field, including database migration, API documentation, and unit tests. Adds a new frontend form component and integrates it into the intake flow, updating type definitions and step logic accordingly.
Steps to test
users_datatableWhat should reviewers focus on?
backend/app/services/implementations/intake_form_processor.pyline 84 let me know if a separate processor function should be written. I saw that most of the questions did have processor functions but since this page only is a free written input text box there isn't much logic to abstact, but I'm not against writing one eitherChecklist