Repository navigation
Put online filing first in the RFA completion flow - #437
Open
nonprofittechy wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
nonprofittechy wants to merge 1 commit into
nonprofittechy wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When LITEfile is enabled, the completion screen currently leads with download instructions and later says the tool does not send forms to court. Put the filing action first, explain the draft-to-submission transition, and use an online-filing introduction. Preserve the existing manual instructions when the integration is disabled. Prefill the defendant’s service city and state from earlier answers, leaving both editable.
This is stacked on #426 because the sender integration is still open. Related: SuffolkLITLab/LITEfile#166.
Validation: parsed the YAML and rendered the introduction/download Mako templates with synthetic helpers in both enabled and disabled modes; checked that the online action precedes downloads and manual-only wording is absent when enabled. Argon and Claude reviewed the cross-repository flow. The completion screen was also exercised in actual localhost Docassemble with generated PDFs in both feature configurations. Answers were seeded via API; full interactive interview traversal and Vermont test-EFM filing remain to be verified.
Follow-ups identified by review: synchronize changed interview answers with filing metadata; verify confidential contact fields in court party records; align the NEXT STEPS document with the online route.
LITEfile companion: SuffolkLITLab/LITEfile#355. Cross-repository findings and proposed follow-ups: https://github.com/SuffolkLITLab/LITEfile/blob/ux/166-streamline-handoff/docs/developer-notes/issue-166-handoff-ux.md.
Actual localhost RFA screenshots
Captured from the PR branch installed in localhost Docassemble, with API-seeded synthetic answers and real generated PDFs. These show the actual AssemblyLine download and email widgets; no controls or styles were replaced. No email was sent or court filing submitted. Both enabled and disabled configurations were exercised. Unlisted screenshot gist.
Online filing enabled
Online filing disabled