Deploy Hotfix: Log File Path

[elipe17]

Summary of Changes

• Updated django log file handler to write to available path and use rollover

How to Test

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

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

1. Start the app and verify the file is in /tdpapp
2. Deploying should work

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

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

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

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

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

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

Deliverable 4: Accessible

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

Deliverable 5: Deployed

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

Deliverable 6: Documented

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

Deliverable 7: Secure

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

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.34%. Comparing base (e423b1b) to head (33d4fcb).
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3198      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    91.10%   95.34%   +4.23%     
===========================================
  Files          292       47     -245     
  Lines         8153     1009    -7144     
  Branches       763      169     -594     
===========================================
- Hits          7428      962    -6466     
+ Misses         642       40     -602     
+ Partials        83        7      -76     

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	?
dev-frontend	95.34% <ø> (ø)

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

see 245 files 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 3ac1dcd...33d4fcb. Read the comment docs.