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.

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

INT - B-22138 - Duty Location Results Should Not Include ZIP Codes for PO Boxes #14482

Conversation

taeJungCaci
Copy link
Contributor

@taeJungCaci taeJungCaci commented Dec 27, 2024

B-22138

Summary

This is to add is_po_box column to re_us_post_regions table to keep record of postal codes being a PO Box or not. Query for searching duty locations in duty location dropdown(customer & office share the same query) have been updated to filter out duty locations where is_po_box is true.

  • added is_po_box column to re_us_post_regions table and updated existing rows that need to have is_po_box as true (default is false).
  • added an index for is_po_box
  • added is_po_box to v_locations view.
  • updated duty location dropdown search query to filter out duty locations where is_po_box = true.

How to test

  1. While creating a move as a customer -> use 92137 when searching for duty locations and verify that exact match does not exist. This zip is a PO Box so it should not be available in the results.
  2. Use any other zip that is not a PO Box and verify the results show. Also search for San Diego and verify a result with 92137 does not show.
  3. You can also verify using any other PO Box zip.
  4. Check the office user side (Edit Orders) and verify the results are the same when searching for any duty locations.

Screenshots

image
image
image
image

@taeJungCaci taeJungCaci added ByteSize M&Ms Team ByteSized M&Ms INTEGRATION Slated for Integration Testing labels Dec 27, 2024
@taeJungCaci taeJungCaci self-assigned this Dec 27, 2024
@taeJungCaci taeJungCaci marked this pull request as ready for review December 30, 2024 15:52
@taeJungCaci taeJungCaci requested review from a team as code owners December 30, 2024 15:52
@JamesHawks224
Copy link
Contributor

testing: success

Copy link
Contributor

@JamesHawks224 JamesHawks224 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

@brooklyn-welsh brooklyn-welsh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tested and working. Code LGTM. ✅

@taeJungCaci taeJungCaci merged commit ef9615f into integrationTesting Jan 2, 2025
39 of 40 checks passed
@taeJungCaci taeJungCaci deleted the INT-B-22138-defect-duty-location-po-box-zip-remake branch January 2, 2025 16:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ByteSize M&Ms Team ByteSized M&Ms INTEGRATION Slated for Integration Testing
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants