fix(spp_drims): name constants after codes the vocabulary actually ships

[emjay0921]

Why is this change needed?

Four constants in spp_drims/models/constants.py held values that exist in no shipped vocabulary: PRIORITY_LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH ("low"/"medium"/"high", where the data ships routine/urgent/critical) and DRIMS_TYPE_TRANSFER ("transfer", where the code is internal_transfer). Nothing failed, because a search for a non-existent code returns an empty set rather than raising, so any comparison against one simply never matched. All four were unused, which is why it went unnoticed — while the file still read as the reference for valid codes (OP#1165).

The same wrong values were also hardcoded as bare strings in the places that mattered, which is where users actually felt it:

• The request list decorated rows and the priority badge on high and medium, so those highlights never appeared.
• The search panel offered a High Priority filter whose domain matched no record, so it always returned nothing.
• get_approval_sla_hours was keyed by critical, high, routine, low. An urgent request found no entry and fell back to the routine default of 24 hours instead of 8 — a wrong answer rather than an error, which is the failure mode this ticket is about.

How was the change implemented?

• Each code constant is now named after the code it holds rather than remapped to the nearest concept — "urgent" is not a medium priority. That gives PRIORITY_ROUTINE/URGENT/CRITICAL and DRIMS_TYPE_INTERNAL_TRANSFER, so a name cannot describe something the data does not have.
• The file is completed, since a partly declared group is what sends a caller back to hardcoding a string: the seven missing codes (cancelled, fulfilled, critical_shortage, quality_issue, routine, urgent, internal_transfer) and VOCAB_* constants for the ten vocabularies that had none, pod-statuses among them.
• Three guards: the SLA hours resolve per shipped priority code, and the list decorations and search filters only name codes that exist. The two view guards fail if the old values come back.
• spp.drims.alert.priority is a different field — a Selection of low/medium/high/critical — and its views are correct. Left alone.

New unit tests

spp_drims/tests/test_constants.py — the durable part. CODE_NAMESPACES records which vocabulary each group of code constants draws from, and the test walks it to assert every constant resolves to a real spp.vocabulary.code, so a constant naming a code the data lacks fails here rather than silently matching nothing.

Unit tests executed by the author

Full spp_drims suite on this branch after merging 19.0 in: 272 tests, 0 failed, 0 errors.

How to test manually

1. Open DRIMS → Requests and set one request to Urgent and another to Critical.
2. The list decoration and priority badge now show for those, where High/Medium styling never appeared before.
3. Use the search panel's priority filters — each returns the matching records instead of nothing.
4. Check the approval SLA on an Urgent request: 8 hours, not the 24-hour routine default it silently fell back to.
5. Confirm DRIMS alerts are unaffected — their priority is a separate Selection field and its values are unchanged.

Related links

• OP#1165 — https://projects.acn.fr/work_packages/1165

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 72.25%. Comparing base (0820667) to head (c5946a0).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             19.0     #438   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   72.24%   72.25%           
=======================================
  Files         419      419           
  Lines       29813    29832   +19     
=======================================
+ Hits        21539    21554   +15     
- Misses       8274     8278    +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
spp_base_common	91.07% <ø> (ø)
spp_drims	82.34% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
spp_drims_sl_demo	68.43% <ø> (-0.58%)	⬇️
spp_programs	65.27% <ø> (ø)
spp_registry	87.22% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️
spp_security	69.56% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
spp_drims/models/constants.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
spp_drims/models/request.py	93.19% <ø> (ø)
spp_drims/models/res_config_settings.py	61.11% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.