[FYST-1868] NC: only ask about 1099rs with taxable amt

[arinchoi03]

Link to pivotal/JIRA issue

• https://codeforamerica.atlassian.net/browse/FYST-1868

Is PM acceptance required? (delete one)

• Yes - don't merge until JIRA issue is accepted!

Reminder: merge main into this branch and get green tests before merging to main

What was done?

• Consolidated logic for eligible_1099rs into StateFileBaseIntake since all states now (except NJ) requires taxable_amount to show a RetirementIncomeSubtractionController descendant page. NC previously had no assumption about what was an eligible 1099r, so it utilized the base intake method for eligible_1099rs which returned state_file1099_rs (basically all 1099rs from df)
• Updated self.show? logic on RetirementIncomeSubtractionController to be consistent across all states as well

How to test?

• Describe the testing approach taken to verify the changes, including:
  • unit tests written
  • Test data used: Elphaba, should only see 1 1099R subtractions question
  • Since this was refactored & impacts all states, double check that the show logic works for all states (AZ/ID/NC/MD) as currently expected -- only eligible (>0 taxable_amount) 1099rs should be shown
    • for ID, the disability logic for 62-64 will factor into the show logic

[github-actions]

Heroku app: https://gyr-review-app-5680-cbe3f7fdc8fd.herokuapp.com/
View logs: heroku logs --app gyr-review-app-5680 (optionally add --tail)

[arinchoi03]

nj is not using this method, but wanted to document that this method does exist for them

[tahsinaislam]

i'm guessing idaho already has a separate test for this because of its additional logic with mfs

[tahsinaislam]

lgtm!

[arinchoi03]

you can look at the individual commits to make sense of what's happening:

1. 93ad0ec fixing the bug by only going through 1099rs that are eligible -- the indices were not matching btwn 1099Rs shown on retirement subtraction controllers & nc review)
2. e7e20db making NC use the partial like AZ/ID (MD to come in a later PR, didn't want to add even more to this PR)
3. 80e9476 spec tweaked to guard against showing ineligible 1099Rs on this page, although that was guarded by the follow up check
4. 9b4a030 use <section> instead of <div> since the implementation was inconsistent & probably better practice to use section for accessibility.

[tahsinaislam]

lgtm!