Dex 70933 map 686 data

[evansmith]

Note: Delete the description statements, complete each step. None are optional, but can be justified as to why they cannot be completed as written. Provide known gaps to testing that may raise the risk of merging to production.

Summary

• This work is behind a feature toggle (flipper): NO
• This PR replaces the previous 686C-674 and 21-674 PDFs with the most updated versions. Along with replacing the templates, the mappings needed to be updated to accommodate the new form fields and to correct some previously existing bugs. The main reason for such a large code difference is replacing the .json files for the simple, overflow, and kitchen_sink unit tests for both 686c-674 and 21-674. Additionally, the 674 PDF is structured differently than the previous version making the pdf_fill changes much larger.
• The solution is to update the mapping and provide new unit test json when adding the new pdf templates.
• VA Benefits and Claims.

Related issue(s)

- Link to ticket created in va.gov-team repo OR screenshot of Jira ticket if your team uses Jira https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team/issues/70942

Testing done

• [x] New code is covered by unit tests
• Previously a completed 686c and 674 populated the old versions of the pdfs.
• Complete a full 686C-674, checking all boxes for adding/removing dependents. Upon completion, verify the generated pdf or go through a rails console to manually generate the pdfs (686C-674 and 21-674) to confirm that all fields are present.

Screenshots

Note: Optional

What areas of the site does it impact?

(Describe what parts of the site are impacted andifcode touched other areas)

Acceptance criteria

• [ ] I fixed|updated|added unit tests and integration tests for each feature (if applicable).
• [ ] No error nor warning in the console.
• [ ] Events are being sent to the appropriate logging solution
• [ ] Documentation has been updated (link to documentation)
• [ ] No sensitive information (i.e. PII/credentials/internal URLs/etc.) is captured in logging, hardcoded, or specs
• [ ] Feature/bug has a monitor built into Datadog or Grafana (if applicable)
• [ ] If app impacted requires authentication, did you login to a local build and verify all authenticated routes work as expected
• [ ] I added a screenshot of the developed feature

Requested Feedback

(OPTIONAL)What should the reviewers know in addition to the above. Is there anything specific you wish the reviewer to assist with. Do you have any concerns with this PR, why?