Program Management Tests

[pxwxnvermx]

This PR adds missing tests for the Enterprise User Visit Review functionality in the Program Management features.

[sravfeyn]

You might be able to use @pytest.mark.parametrize to combine the agree and reject test cases into a single test. And similarly program_manager_pending and network_manager get request tests.

[sravfeyn]

(Not in scope for this PR) We have too many get-form-json methods, wonder if they can be combined.

[pxwxnvermx]

Yeah, I was thinking the same. I am in favor of keeping the latest methods that were created including the fixture that you created for mobile user. That will simplify these tests.

[sravfeyn]

This could potentially be combined with test_receiver_flagged_visit_review_pending using parametrize

[sravfeyn]

Suggested change

	form_json = get_form_json_for_payment_unit(opportunity.paymentunit_set.all()[0])
	form_json = get_form_json_for_payment_unit(opportunity.paymentunit_set.first())

[sravfeyn]

The two tests could potentially be combined

@pytest.mark.parametrize("visit_status, review_status, expect_review_created", [
    (VisitValidationStatus.approved.value, VisitReviewStatus.pending, True),  # Approved case
    (VisitValidationStatus.rejected.value, None, False),  # Rejected case
])
@pytest.mark.parametrize("opportunity", [{"managed": True}], indirect=True)
def test_network_manager_update_flagged_visit(mobile_user: User, opportunity: Opportunity, visit_status, review_status, expect_review_created):
    assert opportunity.managed
    access = OpportunityAccess.objects.get(user=mobile_user, opportunity=opportunity)

    # Create pending visits
    visits = UserVisitFactory.create_batch(
        5, opportunity=opportunity, status=VisitValidationStatus.pending, user=mobile_user, opportunity_access=access
    )

    # Prepare dataset based on status parameter
    dataset = Dataset(headers=["visit id", "status", "rejected reason", "justification"])
    dataset.extend([[visit.xform_id, visit_status, "", "justification"] for visit in visits])

    before_update = now()
    import_status = _bulk_update_visit_status(opportunity, dataset)
    after_update = now()

    # Ensure visits were found and updated
    assert not import_status.missing_visits
    updated_visits = UserVisit.objects.filter(opportunity=opportunity)

    for visit in updated_visits:
        assert visit.status == visit_status
        assert visit.status_modified_date is not None
        assert before_update <= visit.status_modified_date <= after_update
        
        # For approved visits, check review created on date
        if expect_review_created:
            assert before_update <= visit.review_created_on <= after_update
        else:
            assert visit.review_created_on is None

        # Check review status and justification
        assert visit.review_status == review_status
        assert visit.justification == "justification"

[sravfeyn]

This might be out of scope for this PR, but why are we using Agree/Disagree terms as opposed to existing Approved/Rejected from VisiValidationStatus?

[pxwxnvermx]

That was done to reduce the confusion that came due to those choices. These Agree/Disagree choices were distinct enough from the Approved/Rejected choices.