rubyforgood / rubyforgood/human-essentials
[Investigation] Child. Should we be able to have both active and archived (as we have now)? It seems to me that either you are active or archived.
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Ruby
- Stars
- 593
- Forks
- 593
- Avg merge
- 4d 22h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 41
Description
Shouldn't it only be Active OR Archived?
We should find out if any banks' partners are actively relying on a distinction between these as two separate booleans. Our current bank user group likely won't be informative here since they actively discourage / disallow specifying request by child.
Are enough users relying on this that it even is worth 'fixing'?
Edwin found that it was added in https://github.com/rubyforgood/partner/pull/128 when we were still working with 2 separate apps.
It looks like archived is used for aged-out kids.
Let's see if people are using it, and for the right reason. (Back on CL)
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing how Child's active and archived states are used, then inspect the history from rubyforgood/partner pull request #128. Investigate whether partner banks rely on the two booleans separately, and document whether the distinction should be retained or changed.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rails, ruby
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100