1609 Submission History

[jtimpe]

Summary of Changes

Pull request closes #1609

• Introduces a Current Submission/Submission History tab on the Data Files page
• Submission History tab shows a complete list of submitted data for the selected STT/year/quarter search combo, paginated for each section
• Added generic Segmented Control and Pagination components in addition to the new tab content

This also includes changes from #1107

• Adds s3 object versioning to data files, updates the download view to handle a new version id

How to Test

cd tdrs-frontend && npm run start

# in another terminal
cd tdrs-backend && docker-compose up

1. Open http://localhost:3000/ and sign in.
2. Navigate to Data Files and search for a year/quarter. The old functionality on the Current Submission tab should work the same as before.
3. Click into the Submission History tab. If there are results for a year/quarter, they should be displayed along with the submission date and a link to download the file.

Deliverables

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• Implement button group (SegmentedControl)
• Create new Submission History tables
  • Alternating background color for rows
  • Populated with Submitted On, Submitted By, and File Name metadata
  • File Name should be clickable to download the file
• Add pagination to tables
  • Page size of 5
  • Not shown when tables are empty, or only one page of results is shown
• lfrohlich and/or adpennington confirmed that ACs are met.

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

• Are all areas of code introduced in this PR meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces backend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces frontend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
• Are code coverage minimums met?
  • Frontend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)
  • Backend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

• Are backend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are frontend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are code maintainability principles being followed?

Deliverable 4: Accessible

• Does this PR complete the epic?
• Are links included to any other gov-approved PRs associated with epic?
• Does PR include documentation for Raft's a11y review?
• Did automated and manual testing with iamjolly and ttran-hub using Accessibility Insights reveal any errors introduced in this PR?

Deliverable 5: Deployed

• Was the code successfully deployed via automated CircleCI process to development on Cloud.gov?

Deliverable 6: Documented

• Does this PR provide background for why coding decisions were made?
• If this PR introduces backend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces frontend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces dependencies, are their licenses documented?
• Can reviewer explain and take ownership of these elements presented in this code review?

Deliverable 7: Secure

• Does the OWASP Scan pass on CircleCI?
• Do manual code review and manual testing detect any new security issues?
• If new issues detected, is investigation and/or remediation plan documented?

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

• the purpose of the research
• methods used to conduct the research
• who participated in the research
• what was tested and how
• impact of research on TDP
• (if applicable) final design mockups produced for TDP development