Spike: Multi-Select Filter Integration

[elipe17]

Summary of Changes

• Provided a tech memo for the suggested MVP for integrating custom filters with 508.
  Pull request closes Spike - Investigate Custom Filter Integration #3110

How to Test

If you want to checkout the 3110-custom-filter-integration branch on the 508 repo and play around with the suggested changes from the tech memo you can do so.

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• Tech memo provided

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

• Are all areas of code introduced in this PR meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces backend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces frontend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
• Are code coverage minimums met?
  • Frontend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)
  • Backend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

• Are backend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are frontend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are code maintainability principles being followed?

Deliverable 4: Accessible

• Does this PR complete the epic?
• Are links included to any other gov-approved PRs associated with epic?
• Does PR include documentation for Raft's a11y review?
• Did automated and manual testing with iamjolly and ttran-hub using Accessibility Insights reveal any errors introduced in this PR?

Deliverable 5: Deployed

• Was the code successfully deployed via automated CircleCI process to development on Cloud.gov?

Deliverable 6: Documented

• Does this PR provide background for why coding decisions were made?
• If this PR introduces backend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces frontend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces dependencies, are their licenses documented?
• Can reviewer explain and take ownership of these elements presented in this code review?

Deliverable 7: Secure

• Does the OWASP Scan pass on CircleCI?
• Do manual code review and manual testing detect any new security issues?
• If new issues detected, is investigation and/or remediation plan documented?

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

• the purpose of the research
• methods used to conduct the research
• who participated in the research
• what was tested and how
• impact of research on TDP
• (if applicable) final design mockups produced for TDP development

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.61%. Comparing base (a354eed) to head (5ae9dd2).
Report is 26 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3154      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    91.76%   91.61%   -0.15%     
===========================================
  Files          290      291       +1     
  Lines         8023     8075      +52     
  Branches       748      757       +9     
===========================================
+ Hits          7362     7398      +36     
- Misses         579      594      +15     
- Partials        82       83       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	91.09% <ø> (-0.17%)	⬇️
dev-frontend	95.31% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a2f2fde...5ae9dd2. Read the comment docs.

[jtimpe]

Left a couple comments but approving overall. I appreciate you bringing this idea to the table and the time that went into creating this as an example for us. And i'm looking forward to doing more of them and refining the process as a team.

[jtimpe]

are these (reparse.md and sequential-reparse.md) incomplete? were they intended to be included in this PR?

[elipe17]

Yes they were added to this PR just so that they made it into repo somehow. These are unfinished but were the docs we started playing with as a team when the idea was introduced. I can remove if we don't want them.

[andrew-jameson]

Let's remove them for now.

[andrew-jameson]

Good to keep this in the repo/PR, imo!

[raftmsohani]

LGTM!

[ADPennington]

@elipe17 good to merge from my perspective.

[elipe17]

Follow on work here: #3183