22169 - api specs notice of withdrawal

[eason-pan-bc]

Issue #: /bcgov/entity#22169

Description of changes:
Adding items listed below to the api specs

• Notice of Withdrawal Schema
• Sample request
• Sample responses

Specs Render Screenshots:

• Overview
  
• Sample Request
  
• Sample Request with Options
  
• Sample Response - successful
  
• Sample Response - 400
  
• Sample Response - 401
  
• Sample Response - 404
  

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of the lear license (Apache 2.0).

[severinbeauvais]

Shouldn't it be 404 if not found? thanks for the fix

[severinbeauvais]

What about the optional data that could be posted / fetched? Like the 2 checkbox values and the court order. thanks for the fix

[severinbeauvais]

Shouldn't it be 404 if not found?

Good point, we will need to adjust the validation code a bit to make it happen. It's kinda a straight forward change, should I change it and include it in this PR/ticket.

How about: update the spec now and update the code in one of the existing Legal API tickets?

[eason-pan-bc]

Shouldn't it be 404 if not found?

Good point, we will need to adjust the validation code a bit to make it happen. It's kinda a straight forward change, should I change it and include it in this PR/ticket.

How about: update the spec now and update the code in one of the existing Legal API tickets?

Sounds good, added this task to 24989

[ArwenQin]

I would like to confirm the schema for the two checkbox values. Should they be placed within a sub-object or not?

"noticeOfWithdrawal": {
    "filingId": "153004",
    "courtOrder": {
        "fileNumber": "TT0010045",
        "effectOfOrder": "planOfArrangement"
    },
    "planOfArrangement": {
          "partOfPoa": true,
          "hasTakenEffect": true
   }
}

Or

"noticeOfWithdrawal": {
    "filingId": "153004",
    "courtOrder": {
        "fileNumber": "TT0010045",
        "effectOfOrder": "planOfArrangement"
    },
   "partOfPoa": true,
   "hasTakenEffect": true
}

[eason-pan-bc]

"noticeOfWithdrawal": { "filingId": "153004", "courtOrder": { "fileNumber": "TT0010045", "effectOfOrder": "planOfArrangement" }, "planOfArrangement": { "partOfPoa": true, "comeIntoEffect": true } }

Or "noticeOfWithdrawal": { "filingId": "153004", "courtOrder": { "fileNumber": "TT0010045", "effectOfOrder": "planOfArrangement" }, "partOfPoa": true, "comeIntoEffect": true }

I'm a bit confused, I only saw courtOrder as part of the NoW schema. https://github.com/bcgov/business-schemas/blob/main/src/registry_schemas/schemas/notice_of_withdrawal.json#L21C11-L21C122

For planOfArrangement, do you mean effectOfOrder in courtOrder https://github.com/bcgov/business-schemas/blob/5038428a5ae6f8247083478ab8b13ef9eb1be11b/src/registry_schemas/schemas/court_order.json#L29-L33?

And for courtOrder schema, it's been the same for 2 years https://github.com/bcgov/business-schemas/blob/main/src/registry_schemas/schemas/court_order.json
Is there a NoW schema update? @severinbeauvais @ArwenQin

[ArwenQin]

Yes, the schema may need to be updated, as there are 2 new check boxes properties for NoW.
For now, We are not sure whether we need to include the 2 properties, and whether in a sub-object.
Severin and I discussed, for now, we say Yes

[severinbeauvais]

Is there a NoW schema update? @severinbeauvais @ArwenQin

Not yet. The courtOrder object is still there, and the 2 new boolean values may be optional or used for UI only. Still undecided but we don't need to add those to the schema yet.

Update: Yes we will use the 2 new properties. I prefer them in the root of the noticeOfWithdrawal object.

[eason-pan-bc]

Not yet. The courtOrder object is still there, and the 2 new boolean values may be optional or used for UI only. Still undecided but we don't need to add those to the schema yet.

Update: Yes we will use the 2 new properties. I prefer them in the root of the noticeOfWithdrawal object.

Since the api specs follow the schemas, how about I add the option of courtOrder for now. If we ended up updating the NoW schema, we can always come back to update the specs?

[severinbeauvais]

@ArwenQin Speaking of these 2 new properties, I think I was talking with Mihai and we were unsure whether we should save them or not.

On the one hand, staff should know that if either value is True then the NoW cannot be filed, so they won't even try.

On the other hand, if this filing ever becomes self-serve (ie, not staff-only) then we would use these values right in the UI to prevent the NoW filing.

Please follow up with Mihai and Jacqueline on this. If staff don't need the properties then there's no need to save them. If regular users won't be allowed to file a NoW when either propery is True then, again, there's no need to save them.

[severinbeauvais]

Since the api specs follow the schemas, how about I add the option of courtOrder for now. If we ended up updating the NoW schema, we can always come back to update the specs?

Sure. The courtOrder object is optional and we haven't decided about the 2 new properties yet. If they turn out to be for UI use only then they should not be part of the schema/spec.

[eason-pan-bc]

added the sample request with options, and updated the filing not found to 404

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud