feat: send BOPS enhanced constraints data and update PlanningConstraint breadcrumb shape

[jessicamcinchak]

Relies on theopensystemslab/planx-core#46

Planning constraints breadcrumb data before:

• fn: [...intersectingPassportValues]
• _nots: { fn: [...nonIntersectingPassportValues] }
• digitalLandRequest: https://planning.data.gov.uk... - never used afaik, just available as reference

After:

• fn: [...intersectingPassportValues]
• _nots: { fn: [...nonIntersectingPassportValues] }
  • I think we should be able to get rid of this, but it's heavily entwined in upcomingCardIds() still and I was about to easily lose an afternoon untangling. So I'll pick it up in another PR as it's no longer used to format what we send to BOPS (see planx-core change), but only referenced internally for automations
• _constraints: [{...gisResponse}, {...roadsResponse}]
  • This is the new record of everything checked plus it's metadata and urls to re-fetch via the source or planx APIs. This does not know about what the PlanningConstraint component's prop.fn was set to, but I don't think that matters for BOPS or other end consumers?

Testing with BOPS:

• I'll generate and share a test payload with BOPS devs that:
  • Populates existing constraints key as normal
  • Populates new constraints_proposed key with _constraints for comparison / review - I think this can be a good first trial of testing the usefulness of our raw internal response with an end consumer in the spirit of them pulling "full fat" data one day
  • https://api.1827.planx.pizza/admin/session/89420b67-21e4-4c1e-96df-5cd0d9394672/bops
• We'll wait to for feedback and if approved, retire old contraints format for the new proposed one

Internal testing:

• Confirm that automations still work as expected for sites with 0 or many constraints: https://1827.planx.pizza/opensystemslab/digital-land-api-search-test/preview
• Double check formatting of other export formats (XML, CSV, application.html, Review page) - but constraints are already omitted from a number of these

[github-actions]

Removed vultr server and associated DNS entries

[github-actions]

Lighthouse

	buckinhamshire/FOIYNPP	testing/canary
performance	0.24 - 0.25 = -0.01	0.38 - 0.33 = 0.05
accessibility	1 - 1 = 0.00	1 - 1 = 0.00
best-practices	0.92 - 1 = -0.08	0.83 - 0.83 = 0.00
seo	0.88 - 0.89 = -0.01	0.89 - 0.92 = -0.03
pwa	0.7 - 0.7 = 0.00	0.7 - 0.7 = 0.00

[jessicamcinchak]

Send additional A4 information to BOPS

[DafyddLlyr]

Just one small question!

[DafyddLlyr]

We show the graph error if all of these are missing - should it be if any of them are missing?

[jessicamcinchak]

Fair question - I think you're right that || makes more sense than && here even though these fields are all required on our minimum address type. Either case should still only happen when: 1) planning constraints isn't positioned after find property, or 2) there's been an error in OS source data 👌