Contract tool: MVP #1058
Contract tool: MVP #1058
Conversation
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * @function createContract | ||
| * @description Get Contracts from the API |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All the descriptions need updating.
| Authorization: session.token, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| return Axios.patch(`/agreement`, contract, { headers }).then( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the / before agreements correct syntax and needed? Other calls do not have the slash.
| @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ export default { | |||
| lon: capture.lon, | |||
| gps_accuracy: capture.gps_accuracy, | |||
| captured_at: capture.captured_at, | |||
| note: capture.note ? capture.note : null, | |||
| note: capture.note ? capture.note : ' ', // temporary measure because the api requires a non-empty string, but adding notes is not in the UX yet | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's not push this change - we should get the constraint removed from the API instead, unless it's a deliberate change in behaviour.
| * @name contractsTableMetaData | ||
| * @description contains table meta data | ||
| * @type {Object[]} | ||
| * @param {string} contractsTableMetaData[].name - earning property used to get earning property value from earning object to display in table |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Make sure you update references to earnings
| setIsLoading(true); // show loading indicator when fetching data | ||
|
|
||
| const { results, totalCount = 0 } = await getContractAgreements(fetchAll); | ||
| console.log('results:', results, 'totalCount:', totalCount); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Usual comment about using loglevel in place of console.log
| // return; | ||
| // } else { | ||
| if ( | ||
| filtersToSubmit[k] === 'all' || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a bug that's been carried over from the Earnings table – the phrase "all" could be a valid search term (e.g., part of a contract name) and shouldn't be used as a special value.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async function getContractAgreements(fetchAll = false) { | ||
| const filtersToSubmit = { ...filter }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd expect the Name query to be case-insensitive and support partial matches, but this may be an API issue.
| }} | ||
| selectedRow={selectedContractAgreement} | ||
| tableMetaData={contractsTableMetaData} | ||
| activeFiltersCount={ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pressing Reset does not clear the filter count and doesn't correctly reset the table. This may be a bug in the common component though.
| export const AGREEMENT_TYPE = { | ||
| all: 'all', | ||
| grower: 'grower', | ||
| nursury: 'nursury', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be spelled nursery
|
|
||
| const defaultOrgList = userHasOrg | ||
| ? [ | ||
| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does all make sense here?
Description
DONE:
TO DO:
Attaching Documents (document) to Contracts (via contract_document)
One fixed, generic Agreement (agreement) that can be applied to multiple Contracts
-- Need actual example.....
Capture <-> Contract linkage (treetracker.capture.contract_id)
-- Need to add field to capture table
-- Script to fill in the contract_id field based on connection to grower_account_id/worker_id and the time & location of capture?
Earnings <-> Contract linkage (earnings.earnings.contract_id)
-- Need to add field to earnings table?
-- Script to fill in the contract_id field based on connection to grower_account_id/worker_id alone?
create a Contract Query that will include...
-- the org name,
-- # of captures based on the grower_account,
-- and type of agreement
-- maybe also the agreement name, contractor name, and other information to make the table more readable?
fix the date query and other filters that are not currently allowed by the Contract and Agreement APIs
-- what do we want to be able to filter by?
add form to edit contracts and agreements
add tests
get better designs / UX and icons for the different sections
add other functionality: Species Agreement CRUD, Consolidation Rule CRUD
Issue(s) addressed
What kind of change(s) does this PR introduce?
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements