Details about the issue
Detailed description of the issue
The State of Missouri has a requirement to create verification item provided for a certain evidence type in the method VerificationUtilities.insertCaseVerificationsForParticipantEvidence(). Even though a hookpoint i.e VerificationInserted event is raised after the verification insert operation, the above requirement cannot be implemented through event handler because the verificationID points to a different caseID rather than the caseID that was passsed as a parameter in the same method(VerificationUtilities.insertCaseVerificationsForParticipantEvidence()) from which this event is raised so the current available hookpoint is insufficient to implement the custom requirement compliantly.
Detailed steps to reproduce the issue in an out-of-the-box environment
Using CitizenShip evidence as an example:
[As a developer]
01) Create a listener class that implements EventFilter and EventHandler
02) Filter the events in the accept method with the event key -'VerificationInserted'
03) In handler_config.xml, register the event for handler and filter as 'curam.custom.event.impl.TestVerificationEventHandler' with event class 'Verification'
04) Fetch the caseID for the case on which the verification item would be placed(Please refer TestVerificationEventHandler in attached archive).
05) Build and Deploy
[As HCRCASEWORKER]
06) Register any Person
07) From the tab action menu of the Participant Data Case, select 'New Application Form...'
08) Complete and submit the intake application
09) Observe the exception in the console output, the caseID that was fetched from the verificationID belongs to participantDataCase and there is no other way to fetch the caseID where the verification item is to be placed so the eventData is insufficient to implement the requirement in listener class.
10) This listener could be utilised if the caseID which was passsed as a parameter in the method VerificationUtilities.insertCaseVerificationsForParticipantEvidence() was set as a secondary event data before raising the VerificationInserted event
If the issue cannot be replicated in an out-of-box environment, describe the detailed steps that are necessary to help emulate the customized environment in order to highlight the underlying out-of-the-box issue
N/A
Details of any on-site investigations that have been done
N/A
Description of any workarounds / potential solutions that are being used
MO have previously worked around this issue by non-compliantly customizing insertCaseVerificationsForParticipantEvidence() method in VerificationUtilities to verify the active or inedit birth and death details evidence by calling the OOTB method createVerificationItemProvided().
configreport.zip file created by running the Cúram configreport Ant target.
N/A
================================================================================
Details about the Impact of the Issue
Describe the business impact of the issue on the end user
As the method's(insertCaseVerificationsForParticipantEvidence()) parameter - caseID was not set as part of the event data, the State of Missouri's requirement cannot be compliantly implemented resulting in a maintenance burden due to non-compliant implementation.
When was the issue first identified?
N/A
How often does the issue occur?
When the application case was created
Does the issue affect all users?
Yes
================================================================================
Environment
Exact version of IBM Curam
v7.0.7
Type of environment
OOTB
Does this appear to be a regression?
No
Has the issue been replicated in another environment?
N/A
Details of any customizations that have been made in the affected area
N/A
Hi Maribeth,
We have not received the additional information we previously requested from you that would allow us to fully understand and evaluate your enhancement request. Since we have not received the information within the 30 day timeframe, we are closing this request.
If you are able to provide the additional information in the future, please open a new enhancement request and we will be glad to review. We do appreciate the time you take to share your ideas with us and utilize your inputs to improve our product offering.
Thank you,
Shane McFadden, SPM Offering Management team
You can find more information on the request process here.
Hello. Thank you for the details. I have provided your feedback to the developer. I'm awaiting his response.
Regards,
Maribeth Kane
Hi Maribeth,
Thank you for the clarification of the requirements. We provide two approaches to verifying evidence and we want to check if both have been evaluated for how you can achieve your requirements. The mechanism described in your reply is the more static version, where a verification is inserted on creation of evidence. The alternative mechanism is conditional verifications where any conditions can be encoded in a ruleset and a verification is only created if these conditions are met. Below is a link to the KC guide on conditional verifications. It does appear that there are some conditions in your requirements here; the case type and whether create or modifying evidence, so we feel this may be a suitable approach to consider. If you have evaluated this approach and reached blockers, please let us know.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS8S5A_7.0.9/com.ibm.curam.content.doc/Verification/c_VER_ConditionalVerifications.html
Thanks ,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team
Hello. Following are comments from our developer, regarding the business problem:
The business problem is that the State does not wish to burden caseworkers with manually entering a verification item for the client's date of birth during application as their process dictates that these details will be verified during the application process. However, if changes are made to the Birth and Death Details evidence after application, then a verification item must be recorded. Therefore, the Birth and Death Details evidence must be configured to require a verification item to enforce the latter requirement during evidence modification, but the verification requirement should be automatically met during evidence creation in order to fulfill the former requirement.
Hello. I have provided your feedback to the developer and am awaiting his response. I will post it here once received.
Regards,
Maribeth Kane
Hello. Thank you for your response. I am still waiting to hear from the developer regarding your query. As soon as I hear back from him, I will post his response here.
Regards,
Maribeth Kane
Hi Maribeth,
Thank you for your previous reply.
We are still unclear on what the business problem is that needs to be solved and need more information on the scenario/use case.
As you have requested a low-level technical solution here, it is proving difficult for us to determine if the problem can be solved in some other way at present with what we offer out-of-the-box, or if there is an alternative approach to the problem that we would prefer to add to the product.
Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team
Hello. Following are the comments from the Developer. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Regards,
Maribeth Kane
(i) From an Intake perspective, where is this data mapped - is it to the Application Case or to some other central source?
Response: Data is mapped to the Application Case.
(ii) Is there just a single copy of this evidence (is it centralized to a particular place) or do you have multiple copies on different cases?
Response: There exists a separate copy of the the evidence on each different Case.
(iii) If multiple copies can we assume you are using evidence sharing and if so, are you using the latest evidence broker for this? If using this configuration, why would you need to create verifications for this evidence anywhere other than the Application case?
You mention that this requirement exists for other evidence types also. Can you please outline these other evidence types so that we can get a clear understanding of how pervasive the need is. Also if you can answer, for each one of these evidence types, the questions as asked previously for "Birth and Death Details" evidence, e.g. where is the data being mapped to, is this a central/single storage of this evidence and so on. So we can understand if it's the same approach taken for all evidence types.
Response: Our project is not using Advanced Evidence Sharing. The value of the property 'curam.aes.advancedEvidenceSharingEnabled' is set to NO.
This requirement is only for "Birth and Death Details" evidence.
Thank you for the feedback. I have forwarded on your comments to the developer and am awaiting his response. I will post his feedback here upon receipt.
Regards,
Maribeth Kane
Hi Maribeth,
In order to evaluate your request, we require that you provide more detail so that we can fully understand your requirements.
We would like to follow the setup and intended behavior for one or two specific evidence types so that we can better understand your needs.
Starting with the example given in this request "Birth and Death Details" evidence, can you explain:
(i) From an Intake perspective, where is this data mapped - is it to the Application Case or to some other central source?
(ii) Is there just a single copy of this evidence (is it centralized to a particular place) or do you have multiple copies on different cases?
(iii) If multiple copies can we assume you are using evidence sharing and if so, are you using the latest evidence broker for this? If using this configuration, why would you need to create verifications for this evidence anywhere other than the Application case?
You mention that this requirement exists for other evidence types also. Can you please outline these other evidence types so that we can get a clear understanding of how pervasive the need is. Also if you can answer, for each one of these evidence types, the questions as asked previously for "Birth and Death Details" evidence, e.g. where is the data being mapped to, is this a central/single storage of this evidence and so on. So we can understand if it's the same approach taken for all evidence types.
Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team
Hi Maribeth,
Thank you for your enhancement request.
We require some further analysis to determine whether or not this enhancement can be considered in a future release.
I will provide another response when our investigation is complete.
Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team