chore: extend SiteAddress type to account for ranges
#3670
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
jessicamcinchak
commented
Sep 13, 2024
| selectedAddress.SAO_TEXT, // populated in cases of building name only, no street number | ||
| ] | ||
| .filter(Boolean) | ||
| .join(""), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This updates existing sao field to be handled same as pao, whereas previously we only accounted for SAO_TEXT and would miss SAO_START_NUMBER or SAO_START_SUFFIX
jessicamcinchak
commented
Sep 13, 2024
| street?: string; | ||
| town?: string; | ||
| postcode?: string; | ||
| ward?: string; | ||
| parish?: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had to refresh my memory here, so writing it down here too.
These are all (unideally) optional type properties for two reasons:
- This component shares a single
setAddressset state action for both pages (selecting an existing address
& proposing a new one), despite those pages fundamentally requiring/setting different types. There's definitely a future refactor in here, but bigger and more slippery than I'd like to deal with right now! - OS Docs are quite confusing to make sense of about what's required versus not sometimes - for example,
PARISH_CODEhas a "multiplicity" of 1 (not 0..1) which I understand to mean exactly one parish should always be associated with & returned for a given address, yet it's not found in the example response linked above at all
|
Removed vultr server and associated DNS entries |
jessicamcinchak
force-pushed
the
jess/update-address-model-ranges
branch
from
a392a22
to
3719ed7
Compare
DafyddLlyr
approved these changes
Sep 16, 2024
| street?: string; | ||
| town?: string; | ||
| postcode?: string; | ||
| ward?: string; | ||
| parish?: string; |
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.
It came up in Idox feedback that we aren't currently supporting address ranges in the ODP Schema. I looked through the OneApp JSON example we have and don't see any instances of it handling ranges either, but nonetheless it's low effort for us to start more carefully checking for these.
So, this PR adds a few extra fields from the OS Places API "LPI" data source to our internal model which we can later decide how to send along in payloads / the ODP Schema (theopensystemslab/digital-planning-data-schemas#236).
Only additive changes here!
saoEndpaoEndwardparishLinks: