Bug: Fix REC_SSI Cat4 Validator

[elipe17]

Summary of Changes

• Updated logic in cat4 REC_SSI validators to match logic in the provided spreadsheet
• Renamed some tests and variables to more closely align with the field abbreviations
  Pull request closes [bug] TDP is raising cat 4 error on TANF/SSP closed case files that is not present #3073

How to Test

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

1. Open http://localhost:3000/ and sign in.
2. Submit the two files below and verify they are no longer labeled as Rejected
   IN_SSPClosed_anon.txt
   MI_TANFClosed_anon.txt

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• REC_SSI cat4 validators match spreadsheet logic
• Test coverage
• Tests pass

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

[elipe17]

Changed this to 0 to prove that the FAMILY_AFFILIATION value was excluding it from the validator and therefore only generating the single error as opposed to two errors.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 93.01%. Comparing base (3b7a138) to head (cb10046).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3129   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    93.01%   93.01%           
========================================
  Files          277      277           
  Lines         7421     7421           
  Branches       660      660           
========================================
  Hits          6903     6903           
  Misses         415      415           
  Partials       103      103           

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	93.08% <100.00%> (ø)
dev-frontend	92.60% <ø> (ø)

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

Files	Coverage Δ
...d/tdpservice/parsers/case_consistency_validator.py	97.39% <100.00%> (ø)

---

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 bfb55bf...cb10046. Read the comment docs.

[raftmsohani]

LGTM!

[ADPennington]

lgtm! thanks @elipe17 🚀

confirmed the following:

• Cat 4 error raised when fam affil=1 and rec_ssi out of range for a state ✔️
• error not raised when condition not present ✔️
• Cat 4 error raised when fam affil=1 and rec_ssi out of range for a territory ✔️