2627 improve mock data #2636

BCerki · 2024-12-20T23:16:48Z

card: https://github.com/orgs/bcgov/projects/123/views/16?pane=issue&itemId=91540613&issue=bcgov%7Ccas-registration%7C2627

Notes:

I've checked off the parts I've completed in the card's AC
I've also removed some fields that don't exist in reg2 anymore
If there are rebase conflicts, I think we should be able to just wipe whatever's in develop and replace with this

BCerki · 2024-12-20T23:51:35Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/operation.json

@@ -3,17 +3,14 @@
    "model": "registration.operation",
    "pk": "e1300fd7-2dee-47d1-b655-2ad3fd10f052",
    "fields": {
+      "point_of_contact": 1,


I got errors when I removed this, but I don't think it's supposed to be used in reg2, to investigate

We can handle this in the contacts migration ticket: https://github.com/orgs/bcgov/projects/123/views/16?filterQuery=repo%3Abcgov%2Fcas-registration+-status%3Adone+contact&pane=issue&itemId=93316267&issue=bcgov%7Ccas-registration%7C2672. I've added an AC to update mock data

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-10T18:10:04Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/facility.json

+      "latitude_of_largest_emissions": 43.5,
+      "longitude_of_largest_emissions": -123.5


Facilities with "Single Facility" type don't need lat/long.

Do you mean "Small Aggregate"? We won't be able to remove lat/long until #2653 is in (where they're made optional)

Yes, Sorry my bad!
I think that PR will be merged sooner than this PR.

Merged now!

I tried removing this on my end but it failed when I ran make reset_reg_data, realized because I haven't gotten the code from develop yet. ~~So I'll be removing the long/lat from Small Aggregate once the code's updated.~~

Rebased and the long/lat is already removed!

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-10T18:11:54Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/facility.json

+    "model": "registration.facility",
+    "pk": "67fd8288-422b-43d3-a9b1-e4ddc54e2139",
+    "fields": {
+      "created_by": "3fa85f64-5717-4562-b3fc-2c963f66afa6",


This user has Pending status in the user operator mocks; using another user or marking this user as approved might be better.

Thanks for noticing this! I forgot to check that the users made sense within the business requirements

Related, we should update the bceid_business_name in cas-registration/bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/user.json to match any changed operator names

@BCerki, I saw the thread in Teams about whether bceid_business_name is related to operator legal name, and I had the same question. Is my understanding correct that it's not exactly the same (but technically they are?) and there can be subtle differences, but do you guys want me to just go ahead and update bceid_business_name to reflect the changed operator names?

Yes, let's make them match the operator names for the purposes of mock data

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-10T18:20:21Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/facility_designated_operation_timeline.json

+  {
+    "model": "registration.facilitydesignatedoperationtimeline",
+    "fields": {
+      "created_by": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001",


This user is associated with operator 4a792f0f-cf9d-48c8-9a95-f504c5f84b12, and this operator only has one operation with pk 62d5d8ea-b163-4a83-95a4-bfadbb6b21f7. Therefore, this user could not create this record because the operation pk is not associated with the user's operator.

I've fixed this by changing the operator, I put Bojangles' pk instead since that one's missing the facility. Please let me know if the data is still inconsistent 😄

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-10T19:31:34Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/operation.json

-      "regulated_products": [],
-      "status": "Not Started",
+      "status": "Registered",
+      "bc_obps_regulated_operation": "21-0014",


24-0014 or 25-0014 since it was created in 2024.

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-10T19:34:14Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/operation.json

-      "regulated_products": [],
-      "status": "Not Started",
+      "regulated_products": [3],
+      "status": "Closed",


Do we have Closed status?

I'm seeing more statuses that are not in the Operation data model.

All the statuses in the reg1 mock data (bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/v1/operation.json) can stay as is to pass CI, but for reg2 mocks, yes, we should only have statuses that are in the Operation model

I'm not sure how I got some statuses that are not part of the model, I don't recall anymore sorry about that!

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-10T19:42:14Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/operation_designated_operator_timeline.json

-      "end_date": "2024-06-28T23:21:01Z",
-      "status": "Closed"
+      "created_at": "2024-2-01T15:27:00.000Z",
+      "created_by": "ba2ba62a-1218-42e0-942a-ab9e92ce8822",


We don't have a user with ba2ba62a-1218-42e0-942a-ab9e92ce8822 user_guid.

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-10T19:44:33Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/operation_designated_operator_timeline.json

Better to have created_at and created_by for all records in this fixture.

BCerki · 2025-01-10T21:33:52Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/operation.json

      "documents": [],
-      "name": "Operation 2",
+      "name": "Banana LFO - Registered",


For this AC: All LFO operations (except one) should have at least two facilities
LFOs without facilities shouldn't be registered (though I don't think we enforce this). Can we change the status and name of whichever one doesn't have facilities?

There are 2 LFO operations in the file, this (Banana) and Apple. Apple has only 1 facility registered, Banana has 20 registered. Would you prefer to remove the facility registered in Apple so it doesn't have anything under it and I can change the Status and Name to reflect that?

Sure, or we can make a third LFO with no facilities, whatever's easiest

BCerki · 2025-01-10T21:37:41Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/facility.json

+      "name": "Facility 26",
+      "type": "Single Facility",
+      "swrs_facility_id": 1026,
+      "bcghg_id": "13219990029",


Can we remove bcghg_id from some of the facilities? This will make it easier for testers to assign them. There's a note about having done this in the PR description but I think it may have been lost? I don't see it in the referenced commit

BCerki · 2025-01-10T22:00:47Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/facility_designated_operation_timeline.json

@@ -232,5 +232,185 @@
      "operation": "1bd04128-d070-4d3a-940a-0874c4956181",
      "start_date": "2024-06-28T23:20:02Z"
    }
+  },


We either need to update both timeline fixtures to match the transfer_event fixture, or change that to match this

I suggest prioritizing the population of timeline tables first, as they are more critical. The transfer_event fixtures can be handled afterward as the final step.

BCerki

I think Bojangles SFO might be missing a facility because we see "Edit Details" in the grid:

fviduya · 2025-01-14T01:00:56Z

Thank you for the thorough review! I realized that some of the data might've gotten incorrect because of the merge conflict I tried to fix last time.

This commit addresses these:

Fix operation_designated_operator_timeline to reflect correct data
Update boro ID (24 since created in 2024)
Fix Status in Operation.json to reflect only Statuses available in model
Fix operator.json BORO ID
Update bceid_business_name to match any changed operator names
Check created_by field from facility.json and ensure that user is not in Pending Status
Remove half of the bcghg_id from facility.json

While I was fixing the code, I did have some questions:

For operation_designated_operator_timeline: Does the created_by need to be in sync with user_operator?
If the user_operator is in Pending status, is it allowed to have a record in the operation_designated_operator_timeline?

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-14T18:22:49Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/bc_obps_regulated_operation.json

nit: The first two digits of the BORO ID must correspond to the year it was issued. For example, an ID such as 21-0001 cannot be issued on 2023-10-13.

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-14T21:10:13Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/operation_designated_operator_timeline.json

User 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000004 has a pending access request to operator 685d581b-5698-411f-ae00-de1d97334a71 so we can't use this user for created_by fields in this fixture.

fviduya · 2025-01-15T00:59:11Z

This commit

ensures that the BORO ID number corresponds to the year it was created
better distribution of bcghg_id among the facilities
fixes status of user_operator
ensures realistic user in operator_designated_operation_timeline

Sepehr-Sobhani · 2025-01-15T16:43:26Z

bc_obps/registration/fixtures/mock/facility.json

Some facilities were created by user 3fa85f64-5717-4562-b3fc-2c963f66afa6, which is associated with the operator 438eff6c-d2e7-40ab-8220-29d3a86ef314, but that operator doesn't own the operation this facility is associated with. For instance, facility f486f2fb-62ed-438d-bb3e-0819b51e3aeb is associated with operation 002d5a9e-32a6-4191-938c-2c02bfec592d, but this operation is linked to operator 4242ea9d-b917-4129-93c2-db00b7451051, which is not the same as the user's operator.

Sepehr-Sobhani

🤩 Great work!

…rate

…type and status

…_operation_timeline to reflect realistic user, fix facility bcghg_id distribution

BCerki changed the base branch from develop to test-data December 20, 2024 23:51

BCerki commented Dec 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

Sepehr-Sobhani force-pushed the test-data branch from a14e0d2 to 220956b Compare December 24, 2024 17:40

Base automatically changed from test-data to develop December 24, 2024 18:08

fviduya force-pushed the 2627-improve-mock-data branch 2 times, most recently from 71331c3 to 7c9a410 Compare December 31, 2024 22:44

fviduya force-pushed the 2627-improve-mock-data branch from 0c1835a to ea5c67a Compare January 7, 2025 05:14

Sepehr-Sobhani marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2025 18:53

Sepehr-Sobhani requested changes Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

BCerki commented Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

fviduya force-pushed the 2627-improve-mock-data branch from 3b4f50b to c2f3d72 Compare January 14, 2025 01:02

Sepehr-Sobhani requested changes Jan 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

fviduya force-pushed the 2627-improve-mock-data branch from 320a3f0 to c4ed199 Compare January 15, 2025 00:56

Sepehr-Sobhani requested changes Jan 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

fviduya force-pushed the 2627-improve-mock-data branch from a373521 to 5f9dec7 Compare January 17, 2025 00:02

Sepehr-Sobhani approved these changes Jan 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

BCerki and others added 9 commits January 17, 2025 09:41

chore: update operator mock data

a644a27

chore: make operation and operation timeline match

b5ce43e

chore: operation status, regulated products, and purpose are all accu…

c706de0

…rate

chore: make parent/partner operators more obvious

1e011ec

chore: all operators have an operation

04bb56b

chore: add facilities for operations

0775488

chore: add boro ID

ee75cdb

chore: update BORO ID fields

359812d

chore: add purpose for registered operations, change name to reflect …

23e2e83

…type and status

fviduya added 3 commits January 17, 2025 09:42

chore: implement code review changes

ea4bc9f

chore: implement code review, fix user roles, fix operator_designated…

608965d

…_operation_timeline to reflect realistic user, fix facility bcghg_id distribution

chore: implement code review changes

1415ccf

fviduya force-pushed the 2627-improve-mock-data branch from 5f9dec7 to 1415ccf Compare January 17, 2025 16:42

fviduya merged commit 3cdccc1 into develop Jan 17, 2025
42 checks passed

fviduya deleted the 2627-improve-mock-data branch January 17, 2025 18:15

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

2627 improve mock data #2636

2627 improve mock data #2636

BCerki commented Dec 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

BCerki Dec 20, 2024

BCerki Jan 10, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

BCerki Jan 10, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

BCerki Jan 10, 2025

fviduya Jan 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

BCerki Jan 10, 2025

BCerki Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

fviduya Jan 13, 2025

BCerki Jan 13, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

fviduya Jan 14, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

BCerki Jan 10, 2025

fviduya Jan 14, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

BCerki Jan 10, 2025

fviduya Jan 13, 2025

BCerki Jan 13, 2025

BCerki Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

BCerki Jan 10, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 10, 2025

BCerki left a comment

fviduya commented Jan 14, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 14, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 14, 2025

fviduya commented Jan 15, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani Jan 15, 2025

Sepehr-Sobhani left a comment

		"latitude_of_largest_emissions": 43.5,
		"longitude_of_largest_emissions": -123.5

2627 improve mock data #2636

2627 improve mock data #2636

Conversation

BCerki commented Dec 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fviduya Jan 14, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BCerki Jan 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BCerki Jan 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BCerki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fviduya commented Jan 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fviduya commented Jan 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Sepehr-Sobhani left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BCerki commented Dec 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fviduya Jan 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

BCerki Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

BCerki Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading