Skip to content

Conversation

@RachalCassity
Copy link
Member

@RachalCassity RachalCassity commented Dec 8, 2025

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 PR removes deprecated testing infrastructure for the EVSS (External Veteran-facing Services) PPIU (Payment Information Update) service. The change involves cleaning up test files, factories, VCR cassettes, and related code that's no longer needed.

EVSS::PPIU configuration will be removed after this pull request is merged.

Related issue(s)

Testing done

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

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?

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) was deleted but its reference still exists in CODEOWNERS. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and delete the entry for the Offending file: spec/lib/evss/ppiu

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) does not have a CODEOWNERS entry. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and add the entry for the Offending file: app/models/form_profiles/va_0994.rb

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) was deleted but its reference still exists in CODEOWNERS. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and delete the entry for the Offending file: spec/lib/evss/ppiu

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) was deleted but its reference still exists in CODEOWNERS. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and delete the entry for the Offending file: spec/lib/evss/ppiu

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) does not have a CODEOWNERS entry. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and add the entry for the Offending file: app/models/form_profiles/va_0994.rb

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) does not have a CODEOWNERS entry. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and add the entry for the Offending file: app/models/form_profiles/va_0994.rb

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) was deleted but its reference still exists in CODEOWNERS. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and delete the entry for the Offending file: spec/lib/evss/ppiu

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) was deleted but its reference still exists in CODEOWNERS. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and delete the entry for the Offending file: spec/lib/evss/ppiu

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) does not have a CODEOWNERS entry. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and add the entry for the Offending file: app/models/form_profiles/va_0994.rb

@va-vsp-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Error: A file (or its parent directories) does not have a CODEOWNERS entry. Please update the .github/CODEOWNERS file and add the entry for the Offending file: app/models/form_profiles/va_526ez.rb

@RachalCassity RachalCassity changed the title Removed evss pciu testing Removed EVSS:PPIU testing Dec 8, 2025
@RachalCassity RachalCassity marked this pull request as ready for review December 8, 2025 17:15
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 8, 2025 17:15
@RachalCassity RachalCassity requested review from a team as code owners December 8, 2025 17:15
Copy link
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 removes deprecated EVSS::PPIU testing infrastructure as part of the phased deprecation of the EVSS PPIU service. The changes remove VCR cassettes, test specs, factories, and update production code that referenced the deprecated service.

Key changes:

  • Removed all EVSS::PPIU-related VCR test cassettes for both EVSS and mobile endpoints
  • Deleted test specifications for EVSS::PPIU service, payment information, and payment account models
  • Removed FactoryBot factories for PPIU payment data
  • Updated form profile code to remove EVSS::PPIU service dependencies

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 24 out of 24 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Show a summary per file
File Description
spec/support/vcr_cassettes/mobile/payment_information/*.yml Removed mobile payment information VCR cassettes (4 files)
spec/support/vcr_cassettes/evss/ppiu/*.yml Removed EVSS PPIU VCR cassettes (6 files)
spec/lib/evss/ppiu/service_spec.rb Deleted EVSS::PPIU service test file
spec/lib/evss/ppiu/payment_information_spec.rb Deleted payment information model test file
spec/lib/evss/ppiu/payment_account_spec.rb Deleted payment account model test file
spec/lib/disability_compensation/providers/ppiu_direct_deposit/ppiu_provider_spec.rb Deleted PPIU provider base test file
spec/lib/sentry/event_scrubber_spec.rb Removed PPIU-specific PII filtering test case
spec/factories/ppiu_payment_information_responses.rb Deleted PPIU response factory definitions
spec/factories/ppiu_payment_account.rb Deleted PPIU payment account factory
spec/models/form_profile_spec.rb Removed PPIU VCR cassette and expected bank account assertions from form 0994 test
modules/mobile/spec/requests/mobile/v1/user_spec.rb Removed PPIU VCR cassette wrappers from 8 test contexts
modules/mobile/spec/requests/mobile/v0/user_spec.rb Removed PPIU VCR cassette wrappers from 9 test contexts
app/models/form_profiles/va_0994.rb Removed EVSS::PPIU service calls but left broken code referencing undefined variable
app/models/form_profiles/va_526ez.rb Removed unused EVSS::PPIU require statement
config/initializers/inflections.rb Removed PPIU acronym definition
.github/CODEOWNERS Removed CODEOWNERS entries for deleted PPIU test files and cassettes

Comment on lines 39 to 44
VA0994::FormPaymentAccountInformation.new(
account_type: raw_account&.account_type&.capitalize,
account_number: mask(raw_account&.account_number),
routing_number: mask(raw_account&.financial_institution_routing_number),
bank_name: raw_account&.financial_institution_name
)
Copy link

Copilot AI Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The variable raw_account is used but never defined. The previous code retrieved this data from EVSS::PPIU::Service, but after removing those lines, the variable is referenced without being set. This will cause a NameError when this method executes.

Looking at similar form profiles like va_10297.rb and va_526ez.rb, this should likely be updated to use the Lighthouse API provider instead, following the pattern:

provider = ApiProviderFactory.call(
  type: ApiProviderFactory::FACTORIES[:ppiu],
  provider: ApiProviderFactory::API_PROVIDER[:lighthouse],
  current_user: user,
  feature_toggle: nil
)
response = provider.get_payment_information
raw_account = response.responses.first&.payment_account

Or if payment information is no longer needed for this form, the entire method should return {} early after the authorization check.

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like you removed raw_account's definition on line 42

Copy link
Member Author

@RachalCassity RachalCassity Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@rjohnson2011 I removed the payment code. This form is no longer used in prod. slack thread with team

Copy link
Member Author

@RachalCassity RachalCassity Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The team has plans to remove the deprecated 0994 form in the next few sprints.

Co-authored-by: Jennica Stiehl <25069483+stiehlrod@users.noreply.github.com>
@github-actions github-actions bot added lint-failure missing-service-tag With a service tag, you can filter Datadog APM on a per-service level. test-failure labels Dec 8, 2025
@RachalCassity RachalCassity requested a review from a team as a code owner December 8, 2025 21:36
@github-actions github-actions bot removed lint-failure missing-service-tag With a service tag, you can filter Datadog APM on a per-service level. labels Dec 8, 2025
@RachalCassity RachalCassity changed the title Removed EVSS:PPIU testing Removed EVSS:PPIU Specs Dec 8, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants