Feature/2231 Improve Eligibility Report functionality

[HalcyonJAC]

What's included?

Closes #2231.

• Fix the "Recommendation" dropdown and "Reason for recommendation" textbox.

• Remove "Reject Non-declaration" from the issue status options.

• Add a checkbox at the top with the text "Display only candidates with Eligibility issues". This checkbox toggles between all candidates being displayed and just the ones that don't meet some or all of the criteria.

• Add a "Download SCC Annex report link" at the top of the page. The functionality will be implemented in #2300.

• Show the information as shown below with Met / Not met returned for each criterion (not met would require further manual consideration by the SET).

  

Note: This PR requires changes in digital-platform: Feature/admin 2231 Eligibility Report.

Who should test?

✅ Product owner
✅ Developers
✅ UTG

How to test?

Example exercises:

• Legal exercise:
  https://jac-admin-develop--pr2332-feature-2231-improve-hpvso0a0.web.app/exercise/pmhY2nNEQFg4OXzSDPYw/reports/eligibility-issues
• Non-legal exercise:
  https://jac-admin-develop--pr2332-feature-2231-improve-hpvso0a0.web.app/exercise/mof6mdC6grPuF8xQYwUA/reports/eligibility-issues

1. Check if the "Recommendation" dropdown and "Reason for recommendation" textbox work properly.
2. Check if "Reject Non-declaration" has been removed from the issue status options.
3. Check if the checkbox "Display only candidates with Eligibility issues" works properly.
4. Check if each application's information with Met/Not Met shows correctly.

Risk - how likely is this to impact other areas?

🟢 No risk - this is a self-contained piece of work

Additional context

Include screen grabs, video demo, notes etc.

Related permissions

Have permissions been considered for this functionality?

• No permission changes required
• Permissions have been added / updated. Details:

---

PREVIEW:DEVELOP
can be OFF, DEVELOP or STAGING

[github-actions]

Visit the preview URL for this PR (updated for commit 40f22f4):

https://jac-admin-develop--pr2332-feature-2231-improve-hpvso0a0.web.app

_{(expires Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:51:38 GMT)}

_{🔥 via Firebase Hosting GitHub Action 🌎}

_{Sign: 4e92cf51659207b0ae3509dc5c40edde50edfec0}

[Franceswog]

Instruction from 1-4 and other functionalities for both Legal and Non legal - no issues to report.

[nickaddy]

@HalcyonJAC This is looking really good, Ryan. I've been playing around with data in a couple of the apps. Under Shakin' Stevens, the PJE (sitting days) appears to work, but with Jennifer Saunders I have played around with the two entries; they now total 60 sitting days, but PJE is flagged as met even though 300 days are required.

I'm also wondering about on Non-legal exercises, if no professional registrations are requested, would those candidates disappear when the 'Display only..' tickbox was ticked?

[nickaddy]

@HalcyonJAC Another thought - suggest we need a disclaimer on the PQE calculations; candidate inputs only month and year, but we are calculating years, months, days. Obviously there are potential inaccuracies there, even if we fed back years and months only. For example, I'm assuming if a candidate entered, e.g. March 2001 - April 2001, the platform would calculate this as 31 + 30 = 61 days. Thoughts? What's the maximum range of error? Should we consider some kind of flag for candidates that are very close to the required PQE?

[HalcyonJAC]

@HalcyonJAC This is looking really good, Ryan. I've been playing around with data in a couple of the apps. Under Shakin' Stevens, the PJE (sitting days) appears to work, but with Jennifer Saunders I have played around with the two entries; they now total 60 sitting days, but PJE is flagged as met even though 300 days are required.

I'm also wondering about on Non-legal exercises, if no professional registrations are requested, would those candidates disappear when the 'Display only..' tickbox was ticked?

1. I have redeployed the cloud function. Could you test it again, please?
2. For now the checkbox "Display only candidates with Eligibility issues" will not take "Professional Registration" into account. Hope it makes sense.

[nickaddy]

@HalcyonJAC On the first point, I think it's quite a good illustration of my second point above about how the PQE is calculated, in this case it is Jan 2007-Dec 2008 and Jan 2009-Dec 2009. That is being presented as 2y10m. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it could also be displayed as 3y, do you see what I mean? Can you clarify how the calculation is done pls?

On point 2, it seems obvious, but can you confirm that it only applies to non-legal exercises?

[NormaJAC]

I tested all 4 points for the legal and non-legal exercises, all worked as expeected.

[HalcyonJAC]

@nickaddy Here is an example of how the range will be calculated:

• Jan 2007-Dec 2008: the range is calculated from 2007-01-01 00:00:00 to 2008-12-01 00:00:00 which is 1 year and 11 months.
• Jan 2009-Dec 2009: the range is calculated from 2009-01-01 00:00:00 to 2009-12-01 00:00:00 which is 11 months.
  So the total length is 2 years and 10 months.

On point 2, the filter only applies to non-legal exercises.

[nickaddy]

@HalcyonJAC On this basis, it seems that the maximum 'extra days' the platform could calculate would be 1 month, e.g. candidate states January as a start date but actually started on 31 January; we don't need to worry about 'under-calculation' on the end date. As a solution, could we subtract 1 month from the total calculated before feeding it into the Met/Not met calculation? Or just have the platform flag as Not Met if it is within 1 month of the PQE requirement? In reality, this will happen in a minority of cases, but we should cover all bases to give SETs confidence in the feature.

[HalcyonJAC]

@nickaddy Yes, I could subtract 1 month from the total calculated before feeding it into the Met/Not met calculation.

[nickaddy]

@HalcyonJAC This does the job! 🥇