Date based Spec fix 1/1/26

[harshaellanki]

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

• The title follows our guidelines
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes/features), and they use let helpers and before blocks.
• For all UI changes, there is Cucumber coverage.
• Any endpoint touched in the PR has an appropriate Pundit policy. For open endpoints, the reasoning is documented in the PR and code.
• Any endpoint modified in the PR only responds to the expected MIME types.
• For all scripts or rake tasks, how to run them is documented in both the PR and the code.
• There are no inline styles added.
• There is no inline JavaScript added.
• There is no hard-coded text added/updated in helpers/views/JavaScript. New/updated translation strings do not include markup/styles unless there is supporting documentation.
• Code does not use .html_safe.
• All images added/updated have alt text.
• Does not bypass RuboCop rules in any way.

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?:

• Bugfix
• Feature (requires Feature flag)
• Data fix, Migration, or Report (inert code, no impact until run)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• Build related changes
• CI related changes
• Dependency updates (e.g., add a new gem or update to a version)
• Release (Prepares code for a release, e.g., version bumps, changelog updates, tagging, deployment scripts)

What is the ticket # detailing the issue?

Ticket: https://app.clickup.com/t/868gx5t6w

A brief description of the changes:

Current behavior: specs are failing

New behavior: specs should pass

Feature Flag

For all new feature development, a feature flag is required to control the exposure of the feature to our end users. A feature flag needs a corresponding environment variable to initialize the state of the flag. Please share the name of the environment variable below that would enable/disable the feature and indicate which client(s) it applies to.

Variable name:

• DC
• ME

Additional Context

Include any additional context that may be relevant to the peer review process.

[mdkaraman]

This overall looks great but I have one question that applies to a few files. There are a few places where we are hardcoding the date to a specific date in 2025. Are we sure this solution will not break in the future? We need to avoid specs that will break on the new year wherever possible, so just double checking this.

[harshaellanki]

This overall looks great but I have one question that applies to a few files. There are a few places where we are hardcoding the date to a specific date in 2025. Are we sure this solution will not break in the future? We need to avoid specs that will break on the new year wherever possible, so just double checking this.

we are trying to keep the enrollments, reinstates in same calendar year and renewals in different calendar year. i hardcoded the year to avoid those specs failing on 2027 Jan

[jacobkagon]

Changes look good!