Backend Dependency Update

[elipe17]

Summary of Changes

Provide a brief summary of changes
Pull request closes #1647

How to Test

List the steps to test the PR
These steps are generic, please adjust as necessary.

cd tdrs-frontend && docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.local.yml up -d
cd tdrs-backend && docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.local.yml up -d 

1. Open http://localhost:3000/ and sign in.
2. Proceed with functional tests as described herein.
3. Test steps should be captured in the demo GIF(s) and/or screenshots below.

Demo GIF(s) and screenshots for testing procedure

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• [insert ACs here]
• lfrohlich and/or adpennington confirmed that ACs are met.

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 91.24%. Comparing base (eea6c2e) to head (76a9513).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2977      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    91.37%   91.24%   -0.14%     
===========================================
  Files          302      303       +1     
  Lines         8689     8733      +44     
  Branches       643      650       +7     
===========================================
+ Hits          7940     7968      +28     
- Misses         628      645      +17     
+ Partials       121      120       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	91.10% <100.00%> (-0.16%)	⬇️
dev-frontend	92.22% <ø> (ø)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/core/filters.py	70.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...drs-backend/tdpservice/data_files/admin/filters.py	56.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/email/email.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/email/tasks.py	77.89% <100.00%> (-0.24%)	⬇️
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/parsers/row_schema.py	96.58% <100.00%> (ø)
...-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tanf/t6.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...d/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tribal_tanf/t6.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/settings/common.py	99.34% <100.00%> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/users/models.py	93.93% <100.00%> (+2.36%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

---

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 c73ac66...76a9513. Read the comment docs.

[elipe17]

• Lets build a testing checklist
  • Qasp checklist?
  • Functional/smoke testing
  • Cypress tests
  • MUST be done in a deployed ENV
  • Deployed ENV must be upgraded to PG 15 Upgrade Postgres DB from version 12 to version 15 #2857
  • Need a11y review (mostly for DAC)

[robgendron]

Almost complete.

[robgendron]

Aiming to bring it into the environment by end of week.

[robgendron]

Pulled into backlog until blocker is resolved - not templated for a few weeks.

[elipe17]

Deployed to raft environment 10/22/2024 to do some preliminary testing. The frontend seems to have no issues at all. I am not seeing any errors in the console, can navigate to all pages, and can happily submit datafiles. However, when I go to the admin page to start playing around we start seeing lots of errors in the console with respect to static files. It seems the new settings for file backend stuff is not connecting properly.

[elipe17]

Seems like our backend cusstom storages are halfway working. When I submit a file I can subsequently re-download it from the admin console. But the static files backend still seems to be incorrectly configured.

[elipe17]

Used the correct staticfiles backend storage mechanism and resolved all the errors and warnings on the admin page.