fix: geocoding sj

[ludtkemorgan]

Issue #4467

Description

Adds migrations for all of the new San Jose geocoding layers needed for preferences.

• Adds the District council maps. All ten of them
• Adds redline map for city of San Jose

Also noticed the map layers are not sorted so added a UI sort to map layer drop down.

How Can This Be Tested/Reviewed?

With using a fresh stage seeding do the following:

• Login to the partner site with admin account
• go to the api http://localhost:3100/api#/scriptRunner/insertSanJoseMapLayers and run the script
  • Note: this only will work if you don't have API_PASS_KEY set in the backend .api file
• In the partner site go to the "settings" tab and add a new preference.
  • Make sure "San Jose" is the jurisdiction
  • Add options to the preference and select "Yes, check with ArcGIS map" along with one of the new map layers
• Add the newly created preference to a listing
  • Make sure "San Jose" is the jurisdiction

If you want to see the maps you can enter them in geojson.io and enter the featureCollection into the side bar. You should be able to copy the whole json file from the code base file into that site.

Also the data was retrieved from here: Sl City Council Districts.zip
UCB Displacement Risk Model SJ Tracts.zip

Describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration.

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have added QA notes to the issue with applicable URLs
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have reviewed the changes in a desktop view
• I have reviewed the changes in a mobile view
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
• I have assigned reviewers
• I have run yarn generate:client and/or created a migration if I made backend changes that require them
• My commit message(s) is/are polished, and any breaking changes are indicated in the message and are well-described
• Commits made across packages purposefully have the same commit message/version change, else are separated into different commits

Reviewer Notes:

Steps to review a PR:

• Read and understand the issue, and ensure the author has added QA notes
• Review the code itself from a style point of view
• Pull the changes down locally and test that the acceptance criteria is met
• Also review the acceptance criteria on the Netlify deploy preview (noting that these do not yet include any backend changes made in the PR)
• Either explicitly ask a clarifying question, request changes, or approve the PR if there are small remaining changes but the PR is otherwise good to go

On Merge:

If you have one commit and message, squash. If you need each message to be applied, rebase and merge.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for housing-sanjoseca-gov ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	2538a9e
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/housing-sanjoseca-gov/deploys/672bbfd3a94beb00086cc1db
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-681--housing-sanjoseca-gov.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[mcgarrye]

backend-swagger changes are missing. Please run generate:client

[mcgarrye]

How can I test an address that should pass the check? I have tried addresses that are within the zone i selected but I always get No for Passed Address Check

[mcgarrye]

Don't love the ordering here

[ludtkemorgan]

@mcgarrye Yeah, the sorting is not great. It wasn't an ask but the random sort bugged me so I threw in a quick sort

I'm seeing the export work correctly. One call out, if you are entering the address via the partner UI did you verify the map that popped up corresponded to the address you expected to see?

[emilyjablonski]

Because the test failure is around selecting a jurisdiction I'm wondering if this seed data is the cause

[ludtkemorgan]

I think what happened is the additional jurisdiction tied to the user makes the checkbox move just slightly down on the page so now it is not in the screen. The force tag seems to have resolved it.

[emilyjablonski]

@ludtkemorgan Is there an associated issue? Could you also fill out the PR template?

[emilyjablonski]

These historically have been accompanied by a test in core

[ludtkemorgan]

Test added

[emilyjablonski]

I might be overthinking this but is there any performance downside to data this large, either in the codebase or in the map layer?

[ludtkemorgan]

There is some concern for having this large of a json in the DB. Luckily right now we only have these limited number of them. Long term, I'd like to introduce PostGIS to our database so that the data can be compressed. https://postgis.net/. This will allow the data storage in geometry format and then we can read it out as geojson https://postgis.net/docs/manual-2.4/ST_AsGeoJSON.html.

However, that is a bigger task that will need to be done separately. Potentially next time we get more layers (which might be a while)

[emilyjablonski]

Functionally looks good! I dug around Figma for a design and did see this. Currently the UI doesn't link the contact text, not sure if that's expected, but does seem like it would be separate work.

[ludtkemorgan]

@emilyjablonski I don't think there is a ticket for this work as this PR was the last thing I did before my leave. But I can create an empty ticket to track it

[mcgarrye]

lgtm