case workflow role for issue_order action and next state for submit_c… #1659
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces changes to the case workflow configuration, specifically modifying state transitions and role assignments. The transition for case submission has been updated from "PENDING_PAYMENT" to "PENDING_E-SIGN," indicating a new step in the workflow. Additionally, the role for the "ISSUE_ORDER" action has shifted from "CASE_RESPONDER" to "CASE_APPROVER," redefining responsibilities within the workflow. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Workflow
participant CaseApprover
User->>Workflow: Submit Case
Workflow->>CaseApprover: Notify for Approval
CaseApprover-->>Workflow: Approve Order
Workflow->>User: Transition to PENDING_E-SIGN
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- docs/Case/workflow/case-workflowConfig.json (2 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
docs/Case/workflow/case-workflowConfig.json (1)
27-27: LGTM!The change to transition to the "PENDING_E-SIGN" state after submitting a case is approved. It aligns with the overall workflow modifications mentioned in the PR summary.
| @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ | |||
| "action": "ISSUE_ORDER", | |||
| "nextState": "PENDING_RESPONSE", | |||
| "roles": [ | |||
| "CASE_RESPONDER" | |||
| "CASE_APPROVER" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
Inconsistent Role Update Detected
There is still an occurrence of the "CASE_RESPONDER" role in the docs/Case/workflow/case-workflowConfig.json file. Please review this reference to ensure that all instances of the role have been updated to "CASE_APPROVER" where necessary, particularly in relation to the "ISSUE_ORDER" action. This will help maintain consistency in the workflow configuration.
- Location:
docs/Case/workflow/case-workflowConfig.json
Analysis chain
LGTM, but verify the role usage.
The change to assign the "CASE_APPROVER" role to the "ISSUE_ORDER" action is approved. It aligns with the redefinition of responsibilities mentioned in the PR summary.
However, ensure that this change is thoroughly tested to confirm that it behaves as expected and that all references to the "CASE_RESPONDER" role for the "ISSUE_ORDER" action have been updated.
Run the following script to verify the role usage:
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify all references to the "CASE_RESPONDER" role for the "ISSUE_ORDER" action have been updated.
# Test: Search for the role usage in the codebase. Expect: No occurrences of the old role.
rg --type-add 'config:*.json' --type config $'"ISSUE_ORDER"' | rg $'"CASE_RESPONDER"'
Length of output: 85
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify all references to the "CASE_RESPONDER" role in the codebase.
# Test: Search for any occurrences of the "CASE_RESPONDER" role in the codebase.
rg '"CASE_RESPONDER"'
Length of output: 116
…ase updated