Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

Upgrade a benefit's eligibility check to a newer published version

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#516 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Newbie friendliness
48/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
typescript
Domain
frontend

Research direction

Start in SelectedEligibilityCheck.tsx and trace EligibilityCheckRepository.getPublishedCheckVersions and getWorkingId. Verify how a pinned CheckConfig is upgraded while preserving parameters and alias, and how incompatible changes prompt review. Done means newer versions are surfaced and upgradeable without changing already-published screeners.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

backend frontend

Problem

A benefit pins each custom check to one published version (CheckConfig.checkId + checkVersion). When the check's author publishes a newer version, benefits that use the check keep running the old one. That's intended, because published versions are frozen. But nothing in the UI says a newer version exists, and the only way to upgrade is to remove the check from the benefit and add it back, which loses its parameters and alias.

This matters more now that checks can be renamed (#512). A check called "A" at 1.0.0 might be called "B" at 1.1.0, and users would have to recognize it as the same check to upgrade.

Proposal

  • In the benefit editor (SelectedEligibilityCheck.tsx), show when a newer published version of a pinned custom check exists, e.g. "A 1.0.0 → B 1.1.0 available".
  • Add an upgrade action that repoints the CheckConfig at the newer published version while keeping its parameters and alias.
  • Handle changes between versions: parameters that were added (especially required ones), removed, or changed type, and a changed input definition. Ask the user to review the configuration before saving instead of failing silently.
  • Leave already-published screeners alone. They should keep running the version they were published with until the screener is republished.

Notes

Published versions of a check are linked by the check's working ID. P-<suffix>-<version> corresponds to W-<suffix>, and EligibilityCheckRepository.getPublishedCheckVersions / getWorkingId already map between them. As of #512, check IDs no longer depend on the check's name, so all published versions of a check can be found by that ID even after a rename.

Open questions:

  • Should an upgrade that isn't backward compatible (e.g. a new required parameter) be allowed, or blocked until the user fills in the new parameter?
  • Should the same prompt show for library checks, which have their own versioning?
Dominant language
Java
Stars
16
Forks
5
Avg merge
1d 26m
Merged PRs (30d)
25

Getting set up

We have not checked this project's setup files yet. Start from its README, and see our first-contribution guide for the general steps.

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from CodeForPhilly/benefit-decision-toolkit

All issues in CodeForPhilly/benefit-decision-toolkit

Similar issues

More Java issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.