[PM-7004] Verify org delete from emailed link

[kspearrin]

Type of change

- [ ] Bug fix
- [x] New feature development
- [ ] Tech debt (refactoring, code cleanup, dependency upgrades, etc)
- [ ] Build/deploy pipeline (DevOps)
- [ ] Other

Objective

Allow org admins to confirm and verify to delete their org from the emailed link.

Screenshots

Before you submit

• Please add unit tests where it makes sense to do so (encouraged but not required)
• If this change requires a documentation update - notify the documentation team
• If this change has particular deployment requirements - notify the DevOps team
• Ensure that all UI additions follow WCAG AA requirements

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 31.25000% with 22 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.13%. Comparing base (d0c5312) to head (373a2b5).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...ions/manage/verify-recover-delete-org.component.ts	33.33%	14 Missing and 4 partials :warning:
...uest/organization-verify-delete-recover.request.ts	0.00%	2 Missing :warning:
apps/web/src/app/oss-routing.module.ts	0.00%	1 Missing :warning:
.../services/organization/organization-api.service.ts	0.00%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8445   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   28.13%   28.13%           
=======================================
  Files        2369     2371    +2     
  Lines       70053    70085   +32     
  Branches    13162    13167    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        19711    19721   +10     
- Misses      48783    48801   +18     
- Partials     1559     1563    +4     

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[kspearrin]

This all came from copy/paste of the existing verify-recover-delete.component.ts for user accounts. I guess that is deprecated code. I'll have to look into doing things the newer way.

[willmartian]

Ah, gotcha. More than happy to walk through anything with you if needed.

[github-actions[bot]]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 85bf828b-ca36-4741-959e-72dd23c4ae9d

No New Or Fixed Issues Found

[rr-bw]

I think that AC Team should own this new code, given that organizations are largely an AC concern and don't have much to do with Auth. What are your thoughts @rr-bw @jlf0dev ?

@eliykat Sorry for the late response. Yes, we agree (looks like it's already been moved 🙂)

[eliykat]

Also please resolve conflicts :)

[r-tome]

To clarify, is the updated scope to remove the Bootstrap classes in another ticket?

@willmartian I can do that here but I need some assistance. How can I replace the remaining Bootstrap classes?

[eliykat]

My understanding of this thread was that we'd leave some Bootstrap classes in because we don't have the card-style layout available in the CL - which is why I didn't mention it in my review. @willmartian can you please clarify what else we can migrate here and how? I'm not objecting, I just want to clarify what else we can do at this stage.

If it is blocked by current CL limitations, I think we can just make it a follow-up Jira ticket.

Aside from this and my comment above, this lgtm.

[r-tome]

My understanding of this thread was that we'd leave some Bootstrap classes in because we don't have the card-style layout available in the CL - which is why I didn't mention it in my review. @willmartian can you please clarify what else we can migrate here and how? I'm not objecting, I just want to clarify what else we can do at this stage.

If it is blocked by current CL limitations, I think we can just make it a follow-up Jira ticket.

Aside from this and my comment above, this lgtm.

I've added back in the manual loading state. I've also replaced all bootstrap classes with the equivalent tailwind classes (except the card layout).

[willmartian]

My understanding of this thread was that we'd leave some Bootstrap classes in because we don't have the card-style layout available in the CL - which is why I didn't mention it in my review. @willmartian can you please clarify what else we can migrate here and how? I'm not objecting, I just want to clarify what else we can do at this stage.

If it is blocked by current CL limitations, I think we can just make it a follow-up Jira ticket.

@eliykat We should either replace the card classes with Tailwind in this PR, or create a Jira ticket to use the Auth's anon layout component whenever it is ready (PR) and associate it with BW-11. Either is good with me--I just want to make sure this is captured so when I rip bootstrap out nothing breaks here. :)

Everything else here also LGTM!

[r-tome]

@willmartian I gave it a go at replacing the Bootstrap card classes.

[willmartian]

@willmartian I gave it a go at replacing the Bootstrap card classes.

LGTM! Thank you @r-tome