API-34449-poa-requests-mock

[rockwellwindsor-va]

Summary

• Adds optional param to local BGS call so we can ensure to mock only where we want to
• Adds BGS for mocking in the betamocks service config
• Adds new setting under the claims_api namespace for enabling mocking of these BGS calls
• Threads optional param through from read_poa_request which is the BGS call used in the workflow for this ticket specifically

Related issue(s)

API-34449

Testing done

• *There should be no change to current functionality

Testing Notes

• You will need the matching PR from the mock data repo to properly test this out.
• In the mockdata repo pull down the latest and switch to branch API-34449-mock-poa-request-responses
• In settings local add these settings right under claims api (can be anywhere other included to show indenting):

claims_api:
...
 bgs: <--- new
   mock_responses: true <------- new
 local_bgs:
   use_mocks_for_v2: true
 v2_docs:
   enabled: true

• Hit http://localhost:3000/services/claims/v2/veterans/power-of-attorney-requests
• You should see the mocked response (partial screenshot below) come back (we can always change the text I added (mock) to make this easy to see)

Screenshots

What areas of the site does it impact?

• modified: config/betamocks/services_config.yml
• modified: config/settings.yml
• modified: modules/claims_api/app/services/claims_api/power_of_attorney_request_service/index.rb
• modified: modules/claims_api/lib/bgs_service/local_bgs.rb
• modified: modules/claims_api/lib/bgs_service/manage_representative_service.rb

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?

[tycol7]

why not just use the settings.yml value?

[rockwellwindsor-va]

because we can't blanket everything that uses this

[tycol7]

why hardcode use_mocks per method?

[rockwellwindsor-va]

Since local BGS is shared this was the best option I could think of to make sure mocks only happen for the specific requests we want them too.

That being said totally open to a better approach, there is a discussion here

[tycol7]

i see - we donʼt want all-or-nothing. i was initially thrown by the 'use_mocks', as if we are telling the call to use mockdata. maybe 'enable_mocks' or 'allow_mocks' could help future maintainers 🤷