DAC Multi-Select Filtering

[elipe17]

Summary of Changes

• Added new dependency in favor of custom solution. New dependency also provides more DAC filtering options as opposed to a single option which may be useful later.
• Updated appropriate filters to leverage dependency's solutions.
  Pull request closes [BUG] Django admin filter not working properly #3002

How to Test

cd tdrs-frontend && docker-compose up --build
cd tdrs-backend && docker-compose up --build

1. Open http://localhost:3000/ and sign in.
2. Submit some datafiles as multiple different STTs
3. Verify the new filter dropdown only populates with STTs that have submitted data and that no STT is shown as a filter option if it cannot submit the selected record type.
4. Select one or more STTs from the dropdown via CMD + Click and click the filter button
5. Ensure only records with the selected STT are shown
6. Stack other filters on top of the STT filter and ensure you see the correct results

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• STT filter is more readable
• STT filter allows for multiple selections
• Multiple filter selections work together

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

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

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

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

Deliverable 4: Accessible

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

Deliverable 5: Deployed

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

Deliverable 6: Documented

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

Deliverable 7: Secure

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

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 38.09524% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.15%. Comparing base (c503e1d) to head (d8fcc54).
Report is 6 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3037      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    92.97%   93.15%   +0.17%     
===========================================
  Files          276      276              
  Lines         7316     7303      -13     
  Branches       646      642       -4     
===========================================
+ Hits          6802     6803       +1     
+ Misses         413      399      -14     
  Partials       101      101              

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	93.24% <38.09%> (+0.20%)	⬆️
dev-frontend	92.60% <ø> (ø)

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

Files	Coverage Δ
...drs-backend/tdpservice/search_indexes/admin/ssp.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...rs-backend/tdpservice/search_indexes/admin/tanf.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...-backend/tdpservice/search_indexes/admin/tribal.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/settings/common.py	99.30% <ø> (ø)
...-backend/tdpservice/search_indexes/admin/mixins.py	45.90% <75.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
...backend/tdpservice/search_indexes/admin/filters.py	35.08% <29.41%> (+2.17%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 001873d...d8fcc54. Read the comment docs.

[raftmsohani]

LGTM!

[ADPennington]

@reitermb did you happen to give this an a11y pass? @ttran-hub and I were wondering if the stt dropdown needs to be in black font for readability? cc: @elipe17

[reitermb]

@reitermb did you happen to give this an a11y pass? @ttran-hub and I were wondering if the stt dropdown needs to be in black font for readability? cc: @elipe17

I don't think this went by me but I just hopped into QASP and took a look.
Looks like those are #999999 which is indeed too light for contrast compliance.

I also have some concerns about the screenreader accessibility of the mutliselect. I'd recommend label changes to make the broader actions clearer, "All" --> "Show all", "filter" --> "Filter to selection(s)". Functionally it would also be useful to add aria-mutliselectable="true" to the select component and aria-checked="true" to selected items.

cc @elipe17 @ADPennington @ttran-hub

[ADPennington]

@reitermb did you happen to give this an a11y pass? @ttran-hub and I were wondering if the stt dropdown needs to be in black font for readability? cc: @elipe17

I don't think this went by me but I just hopped into QASP and took a look. Looks like those are #999999 which is indeed too light for contrast compliance.

I also have some concerns about the screenreader accessibility of the mutliselect. I'd recommend label changes to make the broader actions clearer, "All" --> "Show all", "filter" --> "Filter to selection(s)". Functionally it would also be useful to add aria-mutliselectable="true" to the select component and aria-checked="true" to selected items.

cc @elipe17 @ADPennington @ttran-hub

@reitermb can you spin up a follow-on ticket for the a11y-related piece of this?

[ADPennington]

• confirmed territories are included in STT list in all and only tanf T1-T7 search indices ✔️
• [a11y fix] Django multi-select filter  #3061 will address a11y concerns cc: @ttran-hub

thanks @elipe17 🚀