Bump react-router-dom from 6.26.2 to 6.28.0 in /frontends/prototypes/prototype-app#124
Closed
dependabot[bot] wants to merge 10000 commits intomainfrom
Closed
Conversation
…ile (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33363) ## Description of the change We currently check that all columns present in the raw data file are found in the file config, but we should also check that all columns found in the file config are present in the raw data file. also update `_get_validated_columns_from_config` -> `_validate_csv_no_expected_header_row` to hopefully be a little more clear, no actual updates to logic there ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#29135 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: b43a37ee62aa783b0225c5dc930f4990d7c2e2e9
…iviz-data#33850) ## Description of the change adds and uses `RawDataResourceLock` type, previous was just using a plain dictionary ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues prework for Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33849 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 2ce02cc47c1f003bf965f1820649689a85e430ce
Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33851) ## Description of the change adds a `ShortCircuit` operator that, if we have no files to import, will skip the rest of the import branch to the clean up stage. in Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33852, i remove a few of the manual skip exceptions we were raising (but was easier to do it w/ resource locking so i didnt have to the myriad of tests twice while also keeping the number of changes small-ish) ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Part of Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33849 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 66d81aba701716614f6bf7dda8d0a1784fdff8cc
) ## Description of the change Getting this error with the full_sandbox_pipeline.sh script: Proceeding with command. [2024-10-01 16:00:32] Running: python -m recidiviz.tools.calculator.run_sandbox_calculation_pipeline --pipeline incarceration_metrics --type metrics --project recidiviz-staging --output_sandbox_prefix zaaron_td_with_401 --state_code US_ME --input_dataset_overrides_json {"normalized_state": "zaaron_td_with_401_us_me_normalized_state"} --metric_types INCARCERATION_ADMISSION INCARCERATION_COMMITMENT_FROM_SUPERVISION INCARCERATION_RELEASE > Have you already created a sandbox dataflow dataset called `zaaron_td_with_401_dataflow_metrics` using `create_or_update_dataflow_sandbox`? [y/n]: y > INFO:root:Test environment, proceeding. > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<frozen runpy>", line 198, in _run_module_as_main > File "<frozen runpy>", line 88, in _run_code > File "/Users/aaron/devel/recidiviz-data/recidiviz/tools/calculator/run_sandbox_calculation_pipeline.py", line 148, in <module> > main() > File "/Users/aaron/devel/recidiviz-data/recidiviz/tools/calculator/run_sandbox_calculation_pipeline.py", line 143, in main > run_sandbox_dataflow_pipeline(params, known_args.skip_build) > File "/Users/aaron/devel/recidiviz-data/recidiviz/tools/utils/run_sandbox_dataflow_pipeline_utils.py", line 89, in run_sandbox_dataflow_pipeline > params.check_for_valid_input_dataset_overrides( > File "/Users/aaron/devel/recidiviz-data/recidiviz/pipelines/pipeline_parameters.py", line 329, in check_for_valid_input_dataset_overrides > raise ValueError( > ValueError: Found original dataset [normalized_state] in overrides which is not a dataset this pipeline reads from. Datasets you can override: ['us_me_normalized_state']. I think the right solution is to change the input_dataset_overrides_json from: {"normalized_state": "zaaron_td_with_401_us_me_normalized_state"} to: {"us_me_normalized_state": "zaaron_td_with_401_us_me_normalized_state"} ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: bba1f66b2d46316a173117d9ae31ba2399b3103b
…ecidiviz/recidiviz-data#33868) ## Description of the change `Completed functional literacy`: `3565 people are no longer eligible`, this is expected because we are using a more accurate representation of the literacy data whereas the previous dataset we were using had quite a few issues based on conversations with Trusted Testers, so we expect to see many less eligible individuals but more accuracy for those that are. I will do validations on this criteria in particular to ensure this large shift is something we expect to see. `No Drug Offense Conviction`: This encompasses all four of the drug conviction criteria, `107 residents are no longer eligible` as a result. `No Domestic Violence Conviction`: `21 residents no longer eligible` `No Sexual Exploitation of Children`: No change, this is likely because we already check for sexual-related crimes and such anyone with a conviction for sexual exploitation has a conviction for the more general category of Sexual Crimes. Overall, `3691` individuals are no longer eligible. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33386 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33387 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33388 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33390 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33392 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 4373a2ee5715c1d52ec548abf78dff61931bdfe8
…ric_interface` JSON (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33843) Updates the Metric config API and MetricInterface methods to save `reporting_agency_id` to the `MetricInterface` storage json. I will follow-up with a script that will backfill reporting_agency_ids for existing agencies. T ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33840 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 2989703a1120ed38a8a13b79de30e93094da9473
) ## Description of the change Adjusts the dimensions and font size of the charts to make them seem more 'high resolution'. Code inspired by the following [thread](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59289997/creating-graphs-with-google-apps-script-charts-service-produces-low-quality-imag). Before report: [US_IX monthly Impact Report ending 2024-04-01](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E6P_AmUNxtA0r2vynQF5glTEJV6oRbM6w4qWO-AWzOM/edit) After report: [US_IX monthly Impact Report ending 2024-04-01](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC4vgTSe9npavlisVX9s02cucUte2lEMuOH4qOzDz_Q/edit#heading=h.v7o94pbx4l50) Here are some befores and afters (idk why the after screenshots are smaller, but I promise the charts are the same size)!         ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant --------- Co-authored-by: Michelle Orden <michelleorden@Michelles-MacBook-Pro.local> GitOrigin-RevId: 8e2d5635fdaaec2b3568dfcae7476244f0602125
…iz/recidiviz-data#33663) ## Description of the change Generate and replace `region_ineligible` and `region_ineligible_num` variables in the Automated Leadership reports. #### How I Tested [US_IX monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-02](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-34ASvUcLM2loCV1IKrpFAOFhoc-TS9kyYEtoHKnoGQ/edit#heading=h.v7o94pbx4l50) [US_ME monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-02](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kNUahBuYL7Lfp2YYtSJbbNnpCP_aVy4piGaiqALwTbI/edit#heading=h.fb4el6rckyu0) [US_MI monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-02](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YgjpHgnnL7wRcFr39dDWdbGXwf9p__V5OMzp2viydd4/edit#heading=h.v7o94pbx4l50) [US_ND monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-02](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzK0r1F34fr4ae6U7J7XE6HNdgjZi_M9pBy9p8x-k4Q/edit#heading=h.v7o94pbx4l50) [US_TN monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-02](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tpY5DkFiimUn3BUg6lKtauGIwNN8GqwsiDqOlVnBiSI/edit#heading=h.v7o94pbx4l50) Screenshots where `region_ineligible_num > 0`:   Screenshots where `region_ineligible_num = 0`:  ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant --------- Co-authored-by: Michelle Orden <michelleorden@Michelles-MacBook-Pro.local> GitOrigin-RevId: 48065bad1a4bd7aa6f9835bbaf1446b451665ad8
…viz-data#33856) ## Description of the change Generate and replace `num_monthly_registered_users`, `num_mau`, `percent_mau`, `num_wau`, and `percent_wau` variables for each workflow in the Automated Leadership reports. #### How I Tested [US_IX monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-03](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fWkt1guEfML2mxu7jSO8vDureuAtRdnSt51XAeZ-95E/edit#heading=h.2tvdr2gciw5v) [US_ME monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-03](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bY75Ra4WvKpSN2mYNPKhhJ2x43082A0MxmdXF7-amoE/edit#heading=h.v7o94pbx4l50) [US_MI monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-03](https://docs.google.com/document/d/12wC0MW3aVSyE6xftW28q33fu58wLfCqjCIlkIfD2Z4s/edit#heading=h.2tvdr2gciw5v) [US_ND monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-03](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H761rAdtDoBRXbOCbEGOWjyODsWS69MCu-jhf9tyLys/edit#heading=h.v7o94pbx4l50) [US_TN monthly Impact Report ending 2024-08-03](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hvRqPOkAiEg6DWOISezavHTNS4JJrgSRHE9FlVblLk4/edit#heading=h.v7o94pbx4l50) Some screenshots:      ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant --------- Co-authored-by: Michelle Orden <michelleorden@Michelles-MacBook-Pro.local> GitOrigin-RevId: 8063598c2a4fc40f279baa19bce7479e151599c3
…PD (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33930) ## Description of the change Adds an enum mapping for the PVPD admission reason to address this [error](Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33914). ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Followup work: Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33927 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 396a86a43736cf99f5824c6831f101c575182748
…/recidiviz-data#33899) ## Description of the change In re-import US_IA we encountered a case where we were failing import because a file contained ascii 0 ``` Error while reading data, error message: Bad character (ASCII 0) encountered.; line_number: 320424 byte_offset_to_start_of_line: 19827747 column_index: 5 column_name: "Suffix" column_type: STRING value: "\000\000" File: gs://recidiviz-staging-direct-ingest-state-us-ia-secondary/unprocessed_2024-09-12T16:55:53:674392_raw_IA_DOC_Names.csv ``` in the primary table the value was just imported as null. Since ascii is a subset of utf-8, we want to be able to load ascii into BQ without doing any normalization of the csv data, so we should preserve the ascii characters on import, then translate any values containing only ascii control characters to nulls in the transformation step. `singlePrimaryKey_input.csv` is showing as a binary file now but its the same as before with the addition of `\000\000,\n` ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33847 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: fad40c2d7dfaf18b2fb7589d02f93f8687889dd3
## Description of the change Adding plotting functions 1. Added a function called `plot_settings()` that helps us add details to our plots: titles, subtitles, y and x labels, max and min values (set to 0 as default) for the y axis, remove gridlines if needed, make x ticks be integer values only 2. Modified `add_legend()` so that it adds a legend to the plot with the option to customize the title, location, and labels. It automatically formats Here's an example use case: <img width="1608" alt="Screenshot 2024-09-20 at 3 24 43 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1bb3dd5c-c039-4667-b9d1-4f55b5511a7b"> 3. Changed some of our default settings in `recidiviz.mplstyle`. The most relevant change is that I made the default chart a big smaller than it was (50% its original size). This can always be adjusted back to it's original size if we run `adjust_plot_scale(scale_factor=2.)`. This is what we agreed on our slack channel. 4. Modified `adjust_plot_scale()` so it always starts from the defaults set in `recidiviz.mplstyle`. ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#26997 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#32747 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 15f994e1dea6223205111ec83c8313dd2af15d2f
## Description of the change This PR refactors the `state_task_deadline` ingest view query to simplify the entity for use in AZ DTP/TPR workflows. ### The current needs for this entity are: - The earliest possible release date on TPR or DTP for people who have been approved or tentatively approved for the program. These dates are stored in ACIS, not calculated by Recidiviz. - A way to differentiate between DTP and TPR release dates. - A ledger of changes to these dates over time for each person. ### This refactored view accomplishes those goals by: - Stores the documented DTP or TPR release date for each person in the `state_task_deadline.eligible_date` field. - Differentiates between dates for each of the two opportunities by setting `task_subtype = 'DRUG TRANSITION_RELEASE'` or `task_subtype = 'STANDARD TRANSITION RELEASE'` where applicable. - Tracks changes to release dates for either opportunity over time. - Stores a number of useful fields in `task_metadata`: - The first two concatenated components of an incarceration period external ID in AZ are `PERSON_ID-DOC_ID`. `DOC_ID` is included in `task_metadata` to be able to link to incarceration periods if needed. - `sentence_external_id` is the ID of the sentence that controls the incarceration stint (i.e. determines the release dates) - `sentence_group_external_id` is the ID of the sentence group that each row relates to. ### Other improvements made in this PR: - Combines DTP and TPR task deadline ingest views into one. - Adds a unit test to make sure that deduplication is happening as expected. Tests: - [x] run_mappings script passes - [x] ingest view query is deterministic - [x] sandbox ingest [pipeline](https://console.cloud.google.com/dataflow/jobs/us-west1/2024-10-02_14_36_11-12102292123861520701;graphView=1?project=recidiviz-staging&pageState=(%22dfTime%22:(%22l%22:%22dfJobMaxTime%22))) succeeds - [x] there are `eligible_date` values in the future - [x] I confirmed that people with `eligible_date` values in the past either appear overdue in ACIS or have been released to supervision. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 4cc2211acb7ee878520397f3b950b28054d1eb2e
… full list (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33949) ## Description of the change The output was getting impossible to read! See latest post in #jc-tech-chat for what it looks like now. Also I was wrong, @nichelle-hall , this does not show agencies with 0 users! It shows users with 0 agencies, haha. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [X] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 31abfddc704fbb59b708815e7a7c1c09abaf38f2
…ted_spreadsheet_json` (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33936) ## Description of the change Matt encountered [a timeout issue](https://recidiviz.slack.com/archives/C04JL8A2ADB/p1727975782009529), reporting: "After I drop the file, it spins for a couple of minutes and then eventually errors out back to the bulk upload screen with no specific error message." I was able to replicate the issue locally. The upload timed out with the large file (1.6MB), but it successfully uploaded after splitting it into smaller sections. Upon checking the logs, I found `ERROR:root:('Connection aborted.', TimeoutError('The write operation timed out'))` in `SpreadsheetInterface.save_ingested_spreadsheet_json`. I experimented with different timeout durations, starting at 5 minutes (no success), then 10 minutes, also without success. Finally, at a 30-minute timeout, the bulk upload completed without errors. This PR implements that change. ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 2f7d9dc3534034ca52b62770a22bdcdd9214b5ec
…-data#33805) ## Description of the change This PR adds a missing metric column error by making sure we determine if a sheet is in the single page upload format if it has a metric, breakdown, or breakdown_category columns. Also FWIW @morden35 mentioned this edge case in a previous playtesting and I forgot to address it!! <img width="1668" alt="Screenshot 2024-09-30 at 3 52 27 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/968accc1-a989-4cfa-9235-8fdd29bbf5b9"> ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 162295a053a17bd98f6158b5538ff91f2f499f75
…ema (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33928) ## Description of the change This PR moves `agency_settings` from the Agency to the Source table in the database. Agency is an abstraction of Source, so the tables are the same. Because of this, when I ran pipenv run migrate-jc, the migration file came up empty. Why is this necessary? I’ll be manually creating sources to backfill reporting_agency for new agency dashboards. These sources won't be agencies; they’ll be vendors or CSG. To support this, I need to add a "homepage URL" setting for these sources, which requires moving agency_settings to Source. ## Related issues Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33842 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: d4a90a3302bce602fb69ad7c881a2c8ba8e0d36f
…viz-data#33918) ## Description of the change Michigan added two columns to the `ADH_SHPERSON` raw data table on 10/3/24. Since we infer columns from raw data configs in MI, it is unclear what the columns were that they added. This PR adds two new columns `Unknown1` and `Unknown2` to the raw data config so that this file can successfully import. I tested import in a sandbox to view the file contents (`elise_us_mi_raw_data.ADH_SHPERSON`). The two new columns are always empty. Based on a search of MI raw data uses, it seems like the only fields we use from this file are `RecID` and `IsDeleted`, both of which appear unimpacted by this change. Those fields are used in ingest while hydrating assessments, so if anything happens to assessments once this newly-structured file is imported, we should investigate this table. Once @brendali121 is back or I find out who our current data contact is in MI, we should ask what these added columns were and rename the columns in this config to reflect the actual structure of the file. I made a ticket to do this at [Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33917](Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33917). ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33915 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 8ea78fdc85496b198aede0c9556732a614bbb594
…idiviz/recidiviz-data#33911) ## Description of the change Change opportunity names to match TES structure proposal. [Please see our diagram for more informations.](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sv9YIc5bYpaC0JCiFHzaA8m1HF8UfEs-gWZgPG7Oyas/edit#slide=id.g2f922d8d846_0_0). I did not make any changes to the contents of the files. ``` python -m recidiviz.tools.load_views_to_sandbox \ --project_id recidiviz-staging\ --sandbox_dataset_prefix hsalas manual \ --dataset_ids_to_load task_eligibility_criteria_us_az,task_eligibility_spans_us_az,workflows_views\ --update_descendants False ``` ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 704070da5c9237e0b33f03c9138232e5a20835f2
## Description of the change I created two new TES with their respective `workflows_views` tables based on [our trusty diagram](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sv9YIc5bYpaC0JCiFHzaA8m1HF8UfEs-gWZgPG7Oyas/edit#slide=id.g2f922d8d846_0_0). We still have to validate many of these numbers, but at least this could unblock Polaris work. - `overdue_for_acis_dtp_request`: this looks at people who are past their DTP date. We flag as almost eligible those who are within 6 months of such date. I created a `workflows_views` table called `overdue_for_acis_dtp_request_record` that pulls only eligible folks. - `overdue_for_acis_tpr_request`: this looks at people who are past their TPR date. We flag as almost eligible those who are within 6 months of such date. To not double count folks who are eligible for both, in this TES we screen out people who are also eligible for DTP release in the following six months. In other words, when eligible for both, we prioritize remove you from the TPR request and only surface you as DTP. I created a `workflows_views` table called `overdue_for_acis_tpr_request_record` that pulls only eligible folks. ### Sanity checking a. Number of people eligible for both opportunities: <img width="397" alt="Screenshot 2024-10-02 at 1 07 58 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e8eb0c54-061d-48cc-8151-ad35fe488059"> ``` SELECT "OVERDUE_FOR_TPR" AS type, COUNT(*) AS count, FROM hsalas_task_eligibility_spans_us_az.overdue_for_acis_tpr_request_materialized WHERE is_eligible AND CURRENT_DATE BETWEEN start_date AND IFNULL(end_date, '9999-12-31') UNION ALL SELECT "OVERDUE_FOR_DTP" AS type, COUNT(*) AS count, FROM hsalas_task_eligibility_spans_us_az.overdue_for_acis_dtp_request_materialized WHERE is_eligible AND CURRENT_DATE BETWEEN start_date AND IFNULL(end_date, '9999-12-31') ``` b. Clients eligible and almost eligible are mutually exclusive between groups: ``` SELECT person_id, COUNT(*) AS count FROM ( SELECT *, FROM hsalas_task_eligibility_spans_us_az.overdue_for_acis_tpr_request_materialized WHERE (is_eligible OR is_almost_eligible) AND CURRENT_DATE BETWEEN start_date AND IFNULL(DATE_SUB(end_date, INTERVAL 1 DAY), '9999-12-31') UNION ALL SELECT *, FROM hsalas_task_eligibility_spans_us_az.overdue_for_acis_dtp_request_materialized WHERE (is_eligible OR is_almost_eligible) AND CURRENT_DATE BETWEEN start_date AND IFNULL(DATE_SUB(end_date, INTERVAL 1 DAY), '9999-12-31') ) GROUP BY 1 HAVING count != 1 ``` c. I uploaded it all into a sandbox (under `hsalas`) ``` python -m recidiviz.tools.load_views_to_sandbox \ --project_id recidiviz-staging\ --sandbox_dataset_prefix hsalas manual \ --dataset_ids_to_load task_eligibility_criteria_us_az,task_eligibility_spans_us_az,workflows_views,task_eligibility,validation_views\ --update_descendants False ``` ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 0f128ac7906b8d127f959504e6a8310c270ddf1e
…diviz/recidiviz-data#33948) ## Description of the change Ungate MO and PA secondary so we can begin testing there. Will ungate IA primary after [ecosystem updates](Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#29058) are complete ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#29135 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 8f82d818d82340587dd0552c30e339dc994a0f69
…viz-data#33959) ## Description of the change https://recidiviz.slack.com/archives/C028X32LRH7/p1728051312141939 ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 84709a33fb6ea3a2c63815799116a465c9e06c58
…sfer_to_minimum_facility (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33351) ## Description of the change Our name for this completion event has caused confusions at many levels, so we thought it was a good time to change it's name to make it clearer. By changing it to `transfer_to_minimum_facility` it both reflects what it's capturing for both ID (transfer to CRC without work-release) and ND (transfer to a minimum security facility). ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: e923321ee57266755ec2a34f649bcdb169cff239
…g sequencing (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33852) ## Description of the change in this PR, i made a few updates to the sequencing and behavior of raw data import DAG; - if a failure occurs during resource locks acquisition, we skip all downstream tasks - if we fail to acquire to resource locks because they are already held, we skip all downstream tasks but DONT fail -- in cases like colorado where we want the infra to be always paused or want to prevent import runs on purpose by holding onto a manual lock that overlaps with an import (like raw data pruning), we dont want to fail loudly. if this is unintended (we held on to a lock by accident), stale raw data validation should be a backstop. i also finally got rid of manually raising `AirflowSkipExceptions` which i am happy about -- i feel they make it quite difficult to introspect about things by just reading the DAG. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33849 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: ba43785cae82497c877b0163221857c301953b51
… consolidate blocking (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33893) ## Description of the change first a few (i think three) PRs to update to operations registration logic to make it handle more edge cases. this PR handles: - a common case that i previously missed: if a file has already been imported (i.e. has `file_processed_time`) we shouldnt re-import it (folks should have to deprecate the file). technically we wouldnt be duplicating data if we didnt do this since in the load step we delete data w/ the same `file_id` - validate that all of the chunks exist for chunked files that have already been grouped in the past and have failed ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Part of Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33879 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 66c98fb863d2ccb09e5fada8cc66af2dc46b9b34
…d experiment environments (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33854) ## Description of the change Adds the necessary monitoring for alerting on experiment composer environments that may no longer be in use ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#28606 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 2423dc0e064b2fe166a0d59e52bca9da3088867a
… functions (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33881) ## Description of the change Updates our source table logic to require that callers are explicit about which project we're collecting source tables for, since the list of source tables differs slightly between projects. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Addresses some PR feedback from Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33866 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 8ece0540ce38c16832af71f31db2a84e33fcc68a
…iz-data#33957) ## Description of the change Some opportunity config fields depend on dict key order, but by default Flask sorts keys in response objects to improve cacheability. I have a more permanent fix scoped in Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33956, but there are too many moving parts to shoot for today's RC. For this next week we can temporarily disable the sorting behavior. It's apparently only possible to do this for the entire server at once, but it's unlikely that we're relying on the sorting behavior elsewhere. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: b95d821709a5f3e8d8aaa6cbae3e3cde00497bc0
) ## Description of the change I added content to the following criteria which only had stubs: - `US_AZ_NO_DANGEROUS_CRIMES_AGAINST_CHILDREN_CONVICTION`. I also changed the name of this criteria so it matches the naming convention of other criteria with similar logic. I created some new criteria to replace old ones that weren't doing exactly what we wanted. I spoke to Shalin and these changes seem to be what we needed to be accurate. Specifically, the following list of criteria are used to take into account all prior convictions instead of just current ones: - `US_AZ_NO_VIOLENT_CONVICTION` - `US_AZ_NO_ARSON_CONVICTION` - `US_AZ_NO_SEXUAL_OFFENSE_CONVICTION` - `US_AZ_NO_VIOLENT_CONVICTION_UNLESS_ASSAULT_OR_AGGRAVATED_ASSAULT_OR_ROBBERY_CONVICTION`: this will replace the OR criteria group we had. It's a bit simpler and it covers edge cases the previous one did not cover. ### Sanity checking I uploaded it all into sandbox (under _hsalas) and got the following results: - These are the number of eligible people and how it all changes with our new changes. The DTP population increased: <img width="786" alt="Screenshot 2024-10-03 at 5 00 17 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9aedcac2-82a9-47c6-a273-8255bcff0c27"> - These people became eligible after meeting their mandatory literacy, which is not being changed in this PR, which is good <img width="771" alt="Screenshot 2024-10-03 at 5 02 14 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/78fa4d85-6587-4a73-990f-fff67c5dd935"> ``` python -m recidiviz.tools.load_views_to_sandbox \ --sandbox_dataset_prefix hsalas auto \ --load_up_to_addresses task_eligibility.all_criteria,task_eligibility.all_tasks ``` ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33380 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: fba9e62432cdd2db453e18f02c48068936a8f841
…iews_to_sandbox (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33866) ## Description of the change Adds support for running `load_views_to_sandbox` with a collection of input source table overrides, so that we can load views on top of the output of sandbox pipeline runs. Tested on top of a set of sandbox datasets with the following commands: ``` python -m recidiviz.tools.load_views_to_sandbox \ --sandbox_dataset_prefix ageiduschek_for_aaron \ --input_source_table_dataset_overrides_json "{\"us_me_normalized_state\": \"zaaron_td_with_401_us_me_normalized_state\", \"dataflow_metrics\": \"zaaron_td_with_401_dataflow_metrics\"}" \ --prompt auto \ --load_changed_views_only ``` ^ This loads just the views in `normalized_state` and `dataflow_metrics_materialized` ``` python -m recidiviz.tools.load_views_to_sandbox \ --sandbox_dataset_prefix ageiduschek_for_aaron \ --input_source_table_dataset_overrides_json "{\"us_me_normalized_state\": \"zaaron_td_with_401_us_me_normalized_state\", \"dataflow_metrics\": \"zaaron_td_with_401_dataflow_metrics\"}" \ --prompt auto \ --load_up_to_datasets task_eligibility_spans_us_me \ --load_up_to_addresses workflows_views.client_record ``` ^ This loads a bunch of datasets, up to and including `client_record` ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33733 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: bc713c0bfe422f96812eca7a5e01c9ed3e4770a0
…cidiviz-data#34460) ## Description of the change we're OOMing in PA reimport trying to import 786 files ``` 'terminated': {'container_id': 'containerd://069b271cd9763b35f47039b31ee4d1e31cb109a262ea19099c7d7a45118db274', 'exit_code': 137, 'finished_at': datetime.datetime(2024, 10, 24, 16, 17, 49, tzinfo=tzlocal()), 'message': None, 'reason': 'OOMKilled', 'signal': None, 'started_at': datetime.datetime(2024, 10, 24, 16, 17, 15, tzinfo=tzlocal())} ``` ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34445 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: b4d78915ae5ff2c0abb6a3779e35b192e93823b3
…idiviz-data#32888) ## Description of the change Task eligibility criteria for the 309 opportunity, and updates to criteria for Work Release, in Arkansas. Relevant links: - [Data Needs sheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CDEN_LZBbD0lter9sYeZmZpQWpcWtBAIYEfi-3R4Pv8/edit?gid=624183576#gid=624183576) - [Criteria list (sent to us by Tawnie)](https://docs.google.com/document/d/11e9A3H6aJZNvg1n9YGSilyge1eo7dORZLNbwFzS-cis/edit?tab=t.0) - [Class I eligibility](https://file.notion.so/f/f/eef9fb8f-9f1f-4309-98ff-e6cff9a43cf9/02adc886-33b0-435a-a581-f6dc76668877/AD_2018-01_Class_Status_and_Promotion_Eligibility.pdf?table=block&id=f789c2a5-c56f-482d-8e7e-a8a0921340bc&spaceId=eef9fb8f-9f1f-4309-98ff-e6cff9a43cf9&expirationTimestamp=1728691200000&signature=ELDKmf4N5EBmRZRb7NL9ugcQ_E6L4kZcWPLRE74u1dk&downloadName=AD+2018-01+Class+Status+and+Promotion+Eligibility.pdf) Validation: no rows returned for the following queries ``` select * from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_validation_views.null_start_date_tes_criteria_spans_materialized` -- from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_validation_views.magic_end_date_tes_criteria_spans_materialized` -- from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_validation_views.start_after_end_date_tes_criteria_spans_materialized` -- from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_validation_views.zero_day_tes_criteria_spans_materialized` -- from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_validation_views.overlapping_tes_criteria_spans_materialized` -- from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_validation_views.zero_eligible_current_task_eligibility_spans_materialized` ``` Eligibility counts: Work release: 15434 309: 12711 ``` select * from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_task_eligibility_spans_us_ar.act_309_materialized` -- from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_task_eligibility_spans_us_ar.work_release_materialized` where current_date() between start_date and coalesce(end_date, '9999-12-31') and is_eligible ``` ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 0d58f3ff73d96ecf6e66c5c4802a3bc58d1f4f44
## Description of the change
wow -- a tough day at the office for small, lack of attention-to-detail
bugs for me yesterday; this PR \*should* fix what was otherwise a
trivial change
```
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/opt/python3.11/lib/python3.11/site-packages/airflow/models/taskinstance.py", line 1519, in _run_raw_task
self._execute_task_with_callbacks(context, test_mode, session=session)
File "/opt/python3.11/lib/python3.11/site-packages/airflow/models/taskinstance.py", line 1649, in _execute_task_with_callbacks
task_orig = self.render_templates(context=context)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/opt/python3.11/lib/python3.11/site-packages/airflow/models/taskinstance.py", line 2288, in render_templates
original_task.render_template_fields(context)
File "/opt/python3.11/lib/python3.11/site-packages/airflow/models/mappedoperator.py", line 726, in render_template_fields
unmapped_task = self.unmap(mapped_kwargs)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/opt/python3.11/lib/python3.11/site-packages/airflow/models/mappedoperator.py", line 643, in unmap
op = self.operator_class(**kwargs, _airflow_from_mapped=True)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/opt/python3.11/lib/python3.11/site-packages/airflow/models/baseoperator.py", line 437, in apply_defaults
result = func(self, **kwargs, default_args=default_args)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/airflow/gcs/dags/recidiviz/airflow/dags/operators/sftp/sftp_to_gcs_operator.py", line 64, in __init__
self.delegate = SftpDownloadDelegateFactory.build(region_code=self.region_code)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/airflow/gcs/dags/recidiviz/ingest/direct/sftp/sftp_download_delegate_factory.py", line 46, in build
region_code = region_code.upper()
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
## Type of change
> All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels
applied (otherwise the PR will fail):
| Label | Description |
|-----------------------------
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue |
| Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality |
| Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected |
| Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or
prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality |
| Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end
related to functionality, development, performance, or security |
| Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these
changes are not included in release notes |
## Related issues
## Checklists
### Development
**This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**:
- [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally
Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull
request**
These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging:
- [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of
this pull request
### Code review
These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging:
- [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful
to a reviewer
- [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have
been considered, if relevant
GitOrigin-RevId: 31fa204de87911c31f08f143e5260bd374358e28
…iviz-data#34449) ## Description of the change in Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34358, we decided that we want the raw data resource lock for the `operations database` to only apply to the raw data tables ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Prework for # Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34015 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 9620f97766d44b35f5c564ef9fcac82903e69c0b
…3916 (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34471) ## Description of the change This is a copy of Nick's PR Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33916 because I got really lost in the Git sauce and couldn't find my way back. I made exactly one change here, and it's the one I pointed out was necessary in [this comment](Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33916 (comment)) on Nick's PR. I coalesce two date fields from raw data instead of using one for both `SENTENCE_BEGIN_DTM` and `SENTENCE_END_DTM`. I cleaned `AZ_DOC_SC_OFFENSE` in a CTE in advance to keep the substantive CTEs as simple as possible. Everything else should be identical to what Nick did. The original PR description: > > > Updates the sentence status snapshot view to ingest sentences before and after their system migration. This update is motivated by: > > * We need start and end dates and the best guess of an end reason for each sentence. (or, if a sentence is still serving) > * Sentences often start and end at the same time because of earned credit. > > The ingest view takes a status for the start and end date for valid sentences. We manually set a sequence number for each so that sentences that start and end at the same time have appropriately sorted statuses. > > **Sandbox Pipeline:** [here](https://console.cloud.google.com/dataflow/jobs/us-west1/2024-10-02_15_22_18-13598443977626420902;graphView=1?project=recidiviz-staging&pageState=(%22dfTime%22:(%22l%22:%22dfJobMaxTime%22))) > > This will merge into the AZ sentence update, so that we can deploy new sentences, statuses, and lengths (in progress) at the same time. > > I can make a TODO for collecting status updates between start and end if we feel like that will be a priority. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant --------- Co-authored-by: Nick Tallant <nickt@recidiviz.org> GitOrigin-RevId: 48f59785d3c7ebb31b45940c66f4149310145aa0
…officer API (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34142) Update the "included in outcomes" officer API to calculate the zero grant opportunity list for officers. Product has asked that we wait to make the changes needed for excluded officers (i.e. updating the insights views to pull in more officers and breaking up the officer model) until we've implemented the pill for the officers that we DO currently include. This PR adds a user context field and auth check for workflows permissions. Uses that permission check to conditionally query for zero grants opps for the officer. Adds the zero_grants_opportunities field to the officer entity. Updates json fixture file to add relevant metrics and then updates the corresponding unit tests and snapshots. GitOrigin-RevId: 572416eb4c8248bbacd95b69f6beeafe4a29b6db
…-data#34464) ## Description of the change PA reimport failing for `dbo_Senrec` with ``` Columns [Judge_Formatted_Name, Crime_Code] found in config for [dbo_Senrec] were not found in the raw data file. ``` ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34445 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 859da86e23639231aee68600ddad626243ebcffb
…#34470) ## Description of the change Convert the `US_OR_SENTENCE_ELIGIBLE` reason field from an array of sentence dicts to an individual sentence dict. Also add two fields to the sentence eligible section for `meets_criteria_served_6_months` and `meets_criteria_served_half_of_sentence`. This only changes the `us_or_earned_discharge_sentence_record.reasons` column as indicated in the sandbox tests below and does not add or remove any rows. Before the reason field looked like ```json [ {"criteria_name":"US_OR_NO_SUPERVISION_SANCTIONS_WITHIN_6_MONTHS","reason":null}, {"criteria_name":"US_OR_SUPERVISION_TYPE_ELIGIBLE","reason":{"supervision_type":["PO"]}}, {"criteria_name":"US_OR_SENTENCE_ELIGIBLE","reason": [ {"is_almost_eligible":false,"is_eligible":true,"latest_conviction_date":"2021-02-12","num_days_absconsion":0,"sentence_eligibility_date":"2024-06-22","sentence_id":1234,"sentence_imposed_date":"2022-04-29","sentence_statute":"162185","supervision_sentence_start_date":"2023-06-23"}, {"is_almost_eligible":false,"is_eligible":true,"latest_conviction_date":"2021-02-12","num_days_absconsion":0,"sentence_eligibility_date":"2024-06-22","sentence_id":5678,"sentence_imposed_date":"2022-04-29","sentence_statute":"1111","supervision_sentence_start_date":"2023-06-23"}, ], } ] ``` And now it looks like ```json [ {"criteria_name":"US_OR_NO_SUPERVISION_SANCTIONS_WITHIN_6_MONTHS","reason":null}, {"criteria_name":"US_OR_SUPERVISION_TYPE_ELIGIBLE","reason":{"supervision_type":["PO"]}}, {"criteria_name":"US_OR_SENTENCE_ELIGIBLE","reason": { "is_almost_eligible":false, "is_eligible":true, "latest_conviction_date":"2021-02-12", "meets_criteria_served_6_months":true, "meets_criteria_served_half_of_sentence":true, "num_days_absconsion":0, "sentence_eligibility_date":"2024-06-22", "sentence_id":4108299394168814708, "supervision_sentence_start_date":"2023-06-23" } } ] ``` Load views ``` python -m recidiviz.tools.load_views_to_sandbox \ --sandbox_dataset_prefix jkunz --state_code_filter US_OR auto \ --load_up_to_addresses workflows_views.us_or_earned_discharge_sentence_record --changed_datasets_to_ignore aggregated_metrics,observations__insights_user_event ``` No differences in columns besides `reasons` ``` python -m recidiviz.tools.calculator.compare_views \ --dataset_original workflows_views \ --dataset_new jkunz_workflows_views \ --view_id us_or_earned_discharge_sentence_record_materialized \ --output_dataset_prefix jkunz_test \ --grouping_columns state_code \ --primary_keys state_code,external_id,opportunity_id,opportunity_pseudonymized_id --ignore_columns reasons ``` ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34422 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: b34868067d0f025e1569c88110a32da1d5d7d4d1
…recidiviz-data#34465) ## Description of the change Since residents in detention will either be eligible for reclass (ie overdue in detention), or are in detention due to a sanction, they should not appear for an scc review. This change does not exclude `DISCIPLINARY_SOLITARY_CONFINEMENT` for our time calcs for when an scc is due, so when residents transfer back and forth from types of solitary confinement, including detention, the total combined time is used to calculate when their review should be due. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34293 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: b7511fc5a45e84e22d525372dffb85e1d3ccb31c
…4482) ## Description of the change Addressing making validations stricter for CA + ME according to Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#27384 ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: b62780a03467a9668f31f8e617f75f7da56eb50d
…cidiviz/recidiviz-data#34483) ## Description of the change the output of `compare_raw_data.py` can be very large and hard to sift through, create new dataset so we can save the output of the data comparison query to a bq table for further analysis (finally heeding ethans original suggestion for the script :) ) ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#32737 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 9c5558981f2d03eacc5ce66d7a236368f5535e0c
…rvisors (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34489) ## Description of the change After a recent ID training, we learned that one of the supervisors wasn't appearing in the tool because the staff exclusion was applying to him, even though it should be just for officers. With adding in the fix for this, it seems like the officer/supervisor queries are now different enough that the shared template is making things more complicated instead of less, so I just went ahead and separated them out. Loaded to sandbox at `dana_outliers_staff`. Comparison views show no changes to the officer view, and 57 additional supervisors added to the supervisors view, including the missing ID supervisor. I also checked the logic for emails since this adds a bunch more supervisors in PA, but none of them have any outlier staff (at least not in the most recent month) so it shouldn't change the number of emails being sent according to [this test](https://github.com/Recidiviz/recidiviz-data/blob/main/recidiviz/tests/reporting/context/outliers_supervision_officer_supervisor/data_retrieval_test.py#L73) ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 561db35ea0444cf3f09d2dc7c974bae8726ea3b2
…ews (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34500) ## Description of the change When I changed the dates to coalesce the manual lock and calculated fields in this view, I did not change them in the conditions that filter the results to protect against `status_update_datetime` being in the future. There was also a bug originally where it was possible for the `GREATEST(SENTENCE_BEGIN_DTM, SENTENCE_END_DTM)` to produce a value in the future (in the case of consecutive sentences), then not be filtered out by the `SENTENCE_END_DTM < CURRENT_DATE` condition. This PR protects against both of those cases! While testing that fix ^ I also found another bug introduced today in the `state_sentence` view by Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34456. There can be more than one `FLAT_SENT_FLAG` per `OFFENSE_ID`, so this view now pulls only the most recently-assigned one. Sandbox ingest pipeline in progress [here](https://console.cloud.google.com/dataflow/jobs/us-west1/2024-10-24_16_20_15-15756664246624497528;graphView=1?project=recidiviz-staging&pageState=(%22dfTime%22:(%22l%22:%22dfJobMaxTime%22))) ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34499 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: f10116f2eccf69f59ff60b7764584a1060a039d8
…z-data#34232) ## Description of the change Created almost eligible feature for Recidiviz TPR Request (will do the same for DTP once we confirm these changes make sense). Made some small changes to the projected dates view as well to align with what Elise & I discussed. Loaded to sandbox under `shalin` and all validations passing! ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#33958 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant --------- Co-authored-by: Hugo S <hugo@recidiviz.org> Co-authored-by: elisegonzal <elise@recidiviz.org> GitOrigin-RevId: b53a604550633913e1d799bb7ce3238091920869
…-data#34468) ## Description of the change Cleaned up and updated the views for case note search. Now there are two views: 1. `case_notes` - this view has all of the individual fields as their own columns, which should make exact match search and metric export easier 2. `case_notes_data_store` this is the data with the fields grouped into a JSON column so it can be used to back the data store I use view Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#2 for exact match in the Quart server because it's expecting the JSON structure, but in the Fastify server I will switch over to using view Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#1 I tested that the views load fine using `recidiviz.tools.load_views_to_sandbox` ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 062ce6d3ba0eeea192ee524442c5267d3bc40dfe
## Description of the change Fixes overlapping spans in the `NO_ESCAPE_VIOLATIONS` criterion by adding a `DISTINCT` call to use only up to one violation per person. Previously there were duplicates for each person with `FIRST_VALUE` but no call to `DISTINCT`. Sandbox: ``` select * from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_validation_views.overlapping_tes_criteria_spans_materialized` ``` ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34515 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34518 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34519 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34516 Cloess Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34517 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34514 Closes Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34513 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 59ccb57c4e31b1b0f55feeb32145dd2c98c0639a
## Description of the change There were a handful of rows with null `person_id` and `state_code` in the AR-specific `class_i` criterion. This removes those rows by using an inner join between a raw data table and `state_person_external_id` instead of a left join. Compare staging: ``` select * from `recidiviz-staging.task_eligibility_criteria_us_ar.class_i_materialized` where state_code is null ``` To this sandbox: ``` select * from `recidiviz-staging.dallen_ar_task_eligibility_criteria_us_ar.class_i_materialized` where state_code is null ``` ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [x] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 0be626a43c2c2160b4cc686e5f5473a83ce1f7be
## Description of the change :upside_down_face: ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: 399d089cd3e96fac351c78b77903789f727b0967
…diviz-data#34490) ## Description of the change Put the Vertex Search Engine into Terraform. Apparently I can't actually specify the bigquery table which the datastore should pull from, so I'll have to do that in the console (womp womp). ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Closes #XXXX ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [ ] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [ ] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [ ] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant --------- Co-authored-by: Dan Hansen <dan@recidiviz.org> GitOrigin-RevId: 5be9e55ba66cbcf233bd703390de4b381c904766
…ecidiviz/recidiviz-data#34528) ## Description of the change A recently-merged PR (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#31964) changed the way state_staff is ingested in AR to only include people with relevant listed roles. There are some staff IDs in other ingest views (such as supervision officers, referring officers, etc) for people who lack a listed staff-type role, but based on context can be inferred to be AR staff members. We need to make this inference, since these staff being ingested for other entities without a corresponding root staff entity causes errors. This change expands the filter in the staff ingest view so that it checks for EITHER a valid staff-type role, or whether or not the ID appears in another table we can use to infer a staff-type role. Also changes staff role/location period ingest to also check for valid role types, to be consistent with the root staff view. A test ingest pipeline verified that this change will resolve the current ingest errors. ## Type of change > All pull requests must have at least one of the following labels applied (otherwise the PR will fail): | Label | Description | |----------------------------- |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Type: Bug | non-breaking change that fixes an issue | | Type: Feature | non-breaking change that adds functionality | | Type: Breaking Change | fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected | | Type: Non-breaking refactor | change addresses some tech debt item or prepares for a later change, but does not change functionality | | Type: Configuration Change | adjusts configuration to achieve some end related to functionality, development, performance, or security | | Type: Dependency Upgrade | upgrades a project dependency - these changes are not included in release notes | ## Related issues Error ticket: Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34461 ## Checklists ### Development **This box MUST be checked by the submitter prior to merging**: - [x] **Double- and triple-checked that there is no Personally Identifiable Information (PII) being mistakenly added in this pull request** These boxes should be checked by the submitter prior to merging: - [ ] Tests have been written to cover the code changed/added as part of this pull request ### Code review These boxes should be checked by reviewers prior to merging: - [x] This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer - [x] Potential security implications or infrastructural changes have been considered, if relevant GitOrigin-RevId: e32bd97576998ec36e332b484f78e2ab02c47e58
…/functions (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34327) GitOrigin-RevId: 6a99173871c7f57e66241267120062978ac5c763
…viz/recidiviz-data#34490)" (Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34540) This reverts commit 5be9e55ba66cbcf233bd703390de4b381c904766, which was causing a Terraform error during the deploy. GitOrigin-RevId: 3a464110350d8dc7851792a41fc0e17316425da1
…cidiviz-data#34541) Deploying Recidiviz/recidiviz-data#34540 failed because completely removing the TF file destroyed the discovery engine API resource, which led to another permissions issue. GitOrigin-RevId: 0a5c181ae0658f6541bfc4c0b883cea0c83a9b03
Bumps [react-router-dom](https://github.com/remix-run/react-router/tree/HEAD/packages/react-router-dom) from 6.26.2 to 6.28.0. - [Release notes](https://github.com/remix-run/react-router/releases) - [Changelog](https://github.com/remix-run/react-router/blob/main/packages/react-router-dom/CHANGELOG.md) - [Commits](https://github.com/remix-run/react-router/commits/react-router-dom@6.28.0/packages/react-router-dom) --- updated-dependencies: - dependency-name: react-router-dom dependency-type: direct:production update-type: version-update:semver-minor ... Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
dependabot
bot
added
the
dependencies
Contributor
Author
|
Superseded by #136. |
dependabot
bot
deleted the
dependabot/npm_and_yarn/frontends/prototypes/prototype-app/react-router-dom-6.28.0
branch
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
20 participants
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.
Bumps react-router-dom from 6.26.2 to 6.28.0.
Release notes
Sourced from react-router-dom's releases.
... (truncated)
Changelog
Sourced from react-router-dom's changelog.
Commits
365fefcchore: Update version for release (#12243)8d05d65chore: Update version for release (pre) (#12201)caa0895Add deprecation warnings for v7 flags in v6 (#11750)50c59eaUpdate jsdoc links to add new v6 segment (#12141)8cfb4a7chore: Update version for release (#12121)cde8139chore: Update version for release (pre) (#12112)9a62e35chore: Update version for release (pre) (#12101)0389ebaFix issues with contextual routing and index params (#12003)73fcb9bStabilize viewTransiton and flushSync options (#11989)8c9e2b6Fix types for PatchRoutesOnNavigationFunction (#11967)You can trigger a rebase of this PR by commenting
@dependabot rebase.Dependabot commands and options
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
@dependabot rebasewill rebase this PR@dependabot recreatewill recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it@dependabot mergewill merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot squash and mergewill squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot cancel mergewill cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging@dependabot reopenwill reopen this PR if it is closed@dependabot closewill close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditionswill show all of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency@dependabot ignore this major versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this minor versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this dependencywill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)