PDJB-990: Skip licensing details during property registration by bnjn-mt · Pull Request #1607 · communitiesuk/prsdb-webapp

bnjn-mt · 2026-07-16T14:31:01Z

Ticket number

Goal of change

Allow landlords to defer providing licensing details during the property registration journey via a "Provide this later" option, mirroring the existing skip behaviour for compliance certificates.

Licensing page with Provide this later button

Description of main change(s)

Adds a "Provide this later" secondary button to the licensing type step, behind the PROPERTY_REGISTRATION_RESTRUCTURE_AND_SKIPPING feature flag.
Adds a new provided confirmation page with two variants — occupied and unoccupied
Adds message keys in forms.yml and registerProperty.yml.
Adds/updates unit tests for the new step configs, the licensing helper and the registration service.

Checklist

Screenshots of any UI changes have been added
Unit tests for new logic (e.g. new service methods) have been added
Single page integration tests have been added for any unhappy-flow UI features, e.g. validation errors
New journey steps have been added to the appropriate journey integration test(s)
Test suite has been run in full locally and is passing
Branch has been rebased onto main and run locally, with everything working as expected
TODO comments referencing this JIRA ticket have been searched for and removed
QA instructions have been added to the ticket
This feature is behind a feature flag. I've checked that there will be no change in function if the feature flag is disabled

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

samyou-softwire · 2026-07-20T11:19:00Z

        val address = addressService.findOrCreateAddress(addressModel)

        val license =
-            if (licenseType != LicensingType.NO_LICENSING) {


what happened to no_licensing?

If the user clicks the provide this later button on the licensing type page, licenseType is null and this variable will also be null. This state means the user still needs to provide this information and will see the "Provide this later" text on other pages (CYA/update etc.)

We can create a license with every value of the LicensingType enum.

My reasoning for this is so we can differentiate between NO_LICENSING and null (provide this later).

makes sense, though I worry that the previous code signature here suggests that a license type of NO_LICENSING used to be stored as null. also, in the LicenseService there is this snippet in the license updating code

if (updateLicenceType == LicensingType.NO_LICENSING) { license?.let { licenseRepository.delete(license) } null }

so we may need more work to update the assumption that 'provide later' => null & 'no_licensing' is stored explicitly

I've reverted this change and created a LicenseService.licenceShouldBeStored method that allows us to keep the existing code signature.

samyou-softwire · 2026-07-22T13:59:01Z

+        fun licenceShouldBeStored(
+            licenceType: LicensingType?,
+            licenseProvideLater: Boolean = false,
+        ): Boolean = licenceType != null && licenceType != LicensingType.NO_LICENSING && !licenseProvideLater


to check; when would licenseType be null?

When the user clicks the 'Provide this later' button during the property registration.

if licenceProvideLater is false and licenceType is not NO_LICENSING those two would imply that the license is not null?

thinking about it, it feels like the reason this is getting hard to reason about is that it's surprising that NO_LICENSING is a license type registered in the enum but PROVIDE_LATER isn't. it leads to code with some quite surprising conditions where we 'just can't' check licenseType

if the database has been laid out this way that's fine, but I think our service layer is suffering. there are only 5 possible states for a license to be in

selective

HMO mandatory

HMO additional

no license

provide later
so I think it'll make this code a lot more clearer if we can make the enum reflect that. it's fine if we don't actually end up putting them all in the database (NO_LICENSING was already stored as null), but I think this'll help us out now and down the road when it comes to interpreting the database

then the signature of this method could become

fun licenceShouldBeStored( licenceType: LicensingType )

Agree it would be nicer to just add an extra enum value here

Travis-Softwire

A couple of minor points, but otherwise LGTM

Travis-Softwire · 2026-07-22T14:28:56Z

    licensingType: Licensing type
    noLicensing: None
+    licensingProvideLater: Provide this later
+  additionalLandlords:


These headings are a bit suspect...

Would something like: forms.checkPropertyAnswers.propertyDetails.licensing.licensingProvideLater be better?

Sorry it was the new lines below that were suspect - they don't seem related to this ticket!

…gTypeFormModel

bnjn-mt · 2026-07-22T16:41:23Z

This is ready to merge if all looks good to you @samyou-softwire :)

Travis-Softwire

A few more comments from me, plus seconding Sammy's earlier suggestion for adding provide later as a licensing type enum value to make some of the checking logic simpler

Travis-Softwire · 2026-07-29T11:46:18Z

+
+    @Test
+    fun `licenceShouldBeStored returns false when the licensing details are being provided later`() {
+        assertFalse(LicenseService.licenceShouldBeStored(null, licenseProvideLater = true))


I think this is passing because you're passing in null rather than testing the actual functionality? Should it be e.g. assertFalse(LicenseService.licenceShouldBeStored(LicensingType.SELECTIVE_LICENCE, licenseProvideLater = true)) instead?

Travis-Softwire · 2026-07-29T11:53:12Z

+        fun licenceShouldBeStored(
+            licenceType: LicensingType?,
+            licenseProvideLater: Boolean = false,
+        ): Boolean = licenceType != null && licenceType != LicensingType.NO_LICENSING && !licenseProvideLater


Agree it would be nicer to just add an extra enum value here

Travis-Softwire · 2026-07-29T12:04:28Z

 ) : Task<LicensingState>() {
    override fun makeSubJourney(state: LicensingState) =
        subJourney(state) {
-            // TODO(PDJB-990): route to the 'provide details about licensing later' page when 'Provide this later' is selected behind the FF: pdjb-939-property-registration-restructure-and-skipping/PROPERTY_REGISTRATION_RESTRUCTURE_AND_SKIPPING


Looks like we're not using the feature flag manager in this class - should we be? Or should it be removed?

Travis-Softwire · 2026-07-29T12:06:50Z

    licensingType: Licensing type
    noLicensing: None
+    licensingProvideLater: Provide this later
+  additionalLandlords:


My previous comment has been marked as resolved, but these message keys that don't seem related to the ticket are still here?

Travis-Softwire · 2026-07-29T12:09:19Z

                    null
                },
-            licenseType = state.licensingTypeStep.formModel.notNullValue(LicensingTypeFormModel::licensingType),
+            licenseType = state.licensingTypeStep.formModelOrNull?.licensingType,


The suggestion RE making provide later a licensing type would also mean that we can keep the notNullValue here which guards against us registering a property with a licensing type of null

bnjn-mt · 2026-07-29T15:45:22Z

I've made the suggested changes in this commit @Travis-Softwire @samyou-softwire

Travis-Softwire

This is looking great now, thanks for persevering! I've left one Q, and it looks like there are some merge conflicts to resolve. Assuming those are relatively simple then this all LGTM (if they turn out to require some more substantive changes then shout and I can quickly re-review)

Travis-Softwire · 2026-07-30T07:09:26Z

+                routeSegment(ProvideLicensingLaterStep.ROUTE_SEGMENT)
+                parents { journey.licensingTypeStep.hasOutcome(LicensingTypeMode.PROVIDE_LATER) }
+                nextStep { exitStep }
+                savable()


What's the reason for this step being savable but the others aren't?

bnjn-mt and others added 7 commits July 16, 2026 14:35

Property registration skip licensing details

9ea39af

Added ’

fb5aef4

Fixed failing tests

ac4f841

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

7ad95c8

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

11e0596

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

5381a80

PDJB-990: Add licensing provide-later integration coverage

41d3700

bnjn-mt force-pushed the feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details branch from da6f948 to 41d3700 Compare July 17, 2026 16:49

bnjn-mt and others added 7 commits July 17, 2026 17:55

PDJB-990: Clean up licensing provide-later integration coverage

f74b0bb

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Fixed compile errors

cb45d0c

Fix tests

5ed4a3e

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

99029da

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

d7fa8df

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

63694c7

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

025fc1e

bnjn-mt marked this pull request as ready for review July 20, 2026 11:05

samyou-softwire reviewed Jul 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

LicenseService.licenceShouldBeStored method and tests

fddb0d8

samyou-softwire reviewed Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Travis-Softwire approved these changes Jul 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

bnjn-mt and others added 3 commits July 22, 2026 16:14

Changed hardcoded provide this later string to a constant in Licensin…

64c55c4

…gTypeFormModel

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

27efe1c

Merge branch 'main' into feat/PDJB-990-skip-licensing-details

e6a92fd

Travis-Softwire requested changes Jul 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Addressed PR comments

b0d8b30

Travis-Softwire approved these changes Jul 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Conversation

bnjn-mt commented Jul 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Ticket number

Goal of change

Description of main change(s)

Checklist

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bnjn-mt Jul 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

samyou-softwire Jul 22, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Travis-Softwire left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bnjn-mt commented Jul 22, 2026

Uh oh!

Travis-Softwire left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bnjn-mt commented Jul 29, 2026

Uh oh!

Travis-Softwire left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

bnjn-mt commented Jul 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

bnjn-mt Jul 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading

samyou-softwire Jul 22, 2026 •

edited

Loading