Update fax to is_fax boolean label

[anselmbradford]

Changes

• Changes fax boolean label to is_fax, per TODO comment.

Testing

1. Run python cfgov/manage.py migrate.
2. Create a browse page in Wagtail.
3. Add a expandable.
4. Add a Phone block to the expandable.
5. Check that the Is this number a fax? checkbox works.

Screenshots

Notes

• Seems like is_fax should be attached to EACH number, not ALL numbers!
  Opened In Contact > Phone, is_fax should apply to EACH number not ALL numbers. #3213

[chosak]

Won't this break existing pages that have a value for fax stored in their database JSON value? There needs to be some kind of data migration to rename a block like this.

[anselmbradford]

Examples of migrating blocks (via @chosak):
https://github.com/cfpb/cfgov-refresh/blob/master/cfgov/v1/migrations/0022_replace_dup_category_field_data.py
https://github.com/cfpb/cfgov-refresh/blob/master/cfgov/v1/migrations/0054_new_categories.py
https://github.com/cfpb/cfgov-refresh/blob/master/cfgov/v1/migrations/0011_hero_refactor_data.py

[Scotchester]

@chosak The standard migration doesn't handle this? I'm confused.

[chosak]

@Scotchester no, because you're not renaming a Django model field, you're renaming a block in a Wagtail StreamField. Recall that StreamField content is stored as JSON in the database, e.g. there's a database column named for the field name (like content) that contains a JSON representation of all of the blocks.

Changing the field name would result in a Django migration that changed the DB column name. But just changing the block name doesn't trigger any kind of automatic migration of the DB content that already exists. The links @anselmbradford posted above are some examples of manual migrations we've done in the past to address this. See also this Wagtail issue on the subject.

[Scotchester]

Ahhh, that makes sense, now. Thanks for the explanation, @chosak.

[willbarton]

There's a section of the documentation on migrating stream fields: https://cfpb.github.io/consumerfinance.gov/migrations/

[Scotchester]

@anselmbradford In light of the need to write a data migration for this, is it worth doing anymore?

[anselmbradford]

I'm rotating to maintenance & response after next sprint, so thinking I'll re-visit this then. If it gets swamped by other priorities I'll close it.

[anselmbradford]

😭

[Scotchester]

Did you determine it's not worth the effort to write the migration?

[anselmbradford]

Did you determine it's not worth the effort to write the migration?

Not so much, I was just keeping my word from my Dec 15 comment. #3213 seems actually bug-like and the semantics here could be incorporated into that, hopefully.

[Scotchester]

I guess I just don't see the point of closing it if it's something that we still think is worth doing. But I take your point that it could be rolled into #3213.