BDMS-372: data visibility and review feature

[chasetmartin]

Why

This PR addresses the following problem / context:

• Implementing new data visibility / review state management - Marissa

Notes

• commented out well-sensor-deployment.py because there is no associated feature file currently. this may be revisited in the future

[codecov-commenter]

❌ 4 Tests Failed:

Tests completed	Failed	Passed	Skipped
232	4	228	76

View the top 3 failed test(s) by shortest run time

tests.test_geospatial::test_get_within_locations

Stack Traces | 0.021s run time

def test_get_within_locations():
        response = client.get(
            "/location",
            params={
                "within": "POLYGON((10.0 10.0, 20.0 10.0, 20.0 20.0, 10.0 20.0, 10.0 10.0))",
            },
        )
        data = response.json()
        assert response.status_code == 200
        assert "items" in data
        # Uncomment the following assertions if you have a specific location to test against
>       assert len(data["items"]) == 1
E       assert 0 == 1
E        +  where 0 = len([])

tests/test_geospatial.py:200: AssertionError

tests.test_location::test_get_location_by_id

Stack Traces | 0.052s run time

location = <db.location.Location object at 0x7fd3d7168150>

    def test_get_location_by_id(location):
        response = client.get(f"/location/{location.id}")
>       assert response.status_code == 200
E       assert 404 == 200
E        +  where 404 = <Response [404 Not Found]>.status_code

tests/test_location.py:188: AssertionError

tests.test_location::test_get_locations

Stack Traces | 0.055s run time

location = <db.location.Location object at 0x7fd3d7168950>

    def test_get_locations(location):
        """
        Test retrieving locations
        """
        response = client.get("/location")
        assert response.status_code == 200
        data = response.json()
>       assert data["total"] == 1
E       assert 0 == 1

tests/test_location.py:162: AssertionError

tests.test_location::test_ampapi_fields_present_in_location_response

Stack Traces | 0.581s run time

def test_ampapi_fields_present_in_location_response():
        """Test that AMPAPI date fields (read-only) are included in location GET response"""
        # Create a new location (without AMPAPI date fields set - they're read-only)
        payload = {
            "point": "POINT (-106.607784 35.118924)",
            "elevation": 1558.8,
            "release_status": "draft",
        }
        create_response = client.post("/location", json=payload)
        assert create_response.status_code == 201
        location_id = create_response.json()["id"]
    
        # Retrieve the location and verify AMPAPI date fields are in the schema
        get_response = client.get(f"/location/{location_id}")
>       assert get_response.status_code == 200
E       assert 404 == 200
E        +  where 404 = <Response [404 Not Found]>.status_code

tests/test_location.py:279: AssertionError

To view more test analytics, go to the Test Analytics Dashboard
_{📋 Got 3 mins? Take this short survey to help us improve Test Analytics.}

[kbighorse]

Is this duplicated/obviated by #298?

[jirhiker]

@kbighorse essentially yes. #298 was a PR to update this #292 PR

[chasetmartin]

Wrapping my head around this file/workflow. I feel like this migration step assumes the existing 'release_status' field properly migrates the legacy scenarios, so is that the first step in this process? Like ensuring testing and documenting:

1. legacy -> existing (release_status)
   and then moving on to:
2. existing -> new proposal (data-visibility-review)
   ?

[kbighorse]

yes, step 1. is now theoretically accomplished by this commit: e5074d4?new_files_changed=true
step 2 will follow.

[chasetmartin]

I see 16 scenarios, are there 5 others?

[kbighorse]

@chasetmartin the following 4 examples count as 4 scenarios

[chasetmartin]

Ah gotcha, thanks 👍

[kbighorse]

@chasetmartin the following 3 examples count as 3 scenarios

[kbighorse]

Feature file tests/features/public_release.feature is copied directly from: https://github.com/DataIntegrationGroup/AMPAPI/pull/131. It is executable there and represents the legacy business logic of the public_release data field.

[chasetmartin]

from @jirhiker "We will need to be more granular than this. E.g only amp users can few amp data, etc."