Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

CM: Update Code using JudgeTeam Admin to Determine Judge / Attorney #12422

Closed
6 tasks done
lomky opened this issue Oct 17, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed
6 tasks done

CM: Update Code using JudgeTeam Admin to Determine Judge / Attorney #12422

lomky opened this issue Oct 17, 2019 · 1 comment
Assignees
@lomky
Labels
Team: Echo 🐬

Comments

@lomky
Copy link
Contributor

lomky commented Oct 17, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Update existing Judge & Attorney assumptions based on judge_team admin/non-admin to use the roles implemented in #12420

Acceptance Criteria

  • Update functions in JudgeTeam model that assume JudgeTeam admins are the judge to use
    • for_judge & create_for_judge
    • Update helper function judgeteam.judges to answer 'who is the judge?' based on role
    • Update helper function judgeteam.attorneyss to answer 'who are the attorneys?' based on role
  • Check code for places outside of the JudgeTeam model that are not using the helper functions, and update them appropriately
    • e.g. distribution explicitly asks for non_admin_users
  • Functionality is tied to a feature flag.
    • Existing JudgeTeams with multiple admins need to be unaffected until we're feature complete

Part of #11801
@lomky lomky changed the title Update Code using JudgeTeam Admin to Determine Judge / Attorney SCM: Update Code using JudgeTeam Admin to Determine Judge / Attorney Oct 17, 2019
@lomky lomky mentioned this issue Oct 17, 2019
Closed
@jimruggiero jimruggiero mentioned this issue Oct 21, 2019
Closed
@lowellrex lowellrex mentioned this issue Oct 22, 2019
Closed
2 tasks
@lomky lomky self-assigned this Oct 29, 2019
@lomky lomky removed their assignment Nov 12, 2019
@lomky
Copy link
Contributor Author

lomky commented Nov 12, 2019

🔴 WARNING: There exist two judgeteams in prod now with multiple Admins. Implementing the code will likely remove capabilities (if any exist?) from those two teams for the non-judge admin.

@jimruggiero some guidance moving forward here is needed. It looks like these two teams added extra admins to their Judge teams, which we do not have documented behavior for as of today. We may need to reconsider how to roll this out to minimize affect on users.

@lomky lomky self-assigned this Nov 21, 2019
@lomky lomky mentioned this issue Nov 21, 2019
Merged
5 tasks
@lomky lomky mentioned this issue Dec 9, 2019
Merged
2 tasks
va-bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 9, 2019
@lomky
Update JudgeTeam methods to use new JudgeTeamRoles (#12779)
bfb9af2 
Connects #12422 

### Description
Updates the functions in the JudgeTeam model to 

### Acceptance Criteria
 - [x] Update functions in JudgeTeam model that assume JudgeTeam admins are the judge to use
   - [x]  for_judge & create_for_judge
   - [x]  Update helper function judgeteam.judges to answer 'who is the judge?' based on role
    - [x] Update helper function judgeteam.attorneyss to answer 'who are the attorneys?' based on ro
 - [x] Functionality behind the feature flag

### Testing Plan
1. Test Suite Passes

### User Facing Changes
None
va-bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 9, 2019
@lomky
Distribution & docket batch size updated with new attorney logic (#12909
011155a 
)

Connects #12422 

### Description
`distribution.batch_size` per team now depends on `judge_team.attorneys`
`distribution.total_batch_size` now depends on DecisionDraftingAttorney user count. likewise docket coordinator's.

### Acceptance Criteria
- [x] Refactor: Tests (continue to) pass
- [x] Cases can still be distributed

### User Facing Changes
None
@lomky lomky closed this as completed Dec 10, 2019
@hschallhorn hschallhorn mentioned this issue Jan 16, 2020
Closed
@lomky lomky mentioned this issue Apr 14, 2020
Closed
2 tasks
@araposo-tistatech araposo-tistatech changed the title SCM: Update Code using JudgeTeam Admin to Determine Judge / Attorney CM: Update Code using JudgeTeam Admin to Determine Judge / Attorney Apr 29, 2020
@yoomlam yoomlam mentioned this issue Jan 5, 2021
Merged
5 tasks
va-bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 7, 2021
@yoomlam
CASEFLOW-641 #done Use admin status to determine role on JudgeTeam (#…
40f3f77 
…15740)

Resolves #13994 (aka [CASEFLOW-641](https://vajira.max.gov/browse/CASEFLOW-641)) and resolves #13999.

Related to #13992, #14798, and #12422.

### Description
* Removes DecisionDraftingAttorney, JudgeTeamLead, and JudgeTeamRole classes
* Removes references to them

My approach was to review prior related PRs and undo them to the extent possible. Irrelevant tests were also removed.

[Slack thread](https://dsva.slack.com/archives/CJL810329/p1609780627229600)

### Acceptance Criteria
- [x] Code compiles correctly and tests pass

From #13994
- [x] Judge & Attorney in Caseflow are determined via admin status (rather than JudgeTeamRoles)
- [ ] ~No changes are done to JudgeTeamRoles in this issue - that will be adjusted in follow on work~ (The follow-on work #13999 is pulled into this PR.)

From #13999
- [x] References to the JudgeTeamRole have been refactored out of the codebase
- [ ] ~The models themselves are reduced to a `noop` model, but are not yet removed~ (I went ahead and removed the models because it becomes easier to detect and remove references to them.)

### Testing Plan
Carefully review deleted code to ensure they are not (conceptually) used by any remaining code.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@lomky lomky

Labels
Team: Echo 🐬
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@lomky