add db workflow documentation

[Matt-Spence]

Ticket

Resolves #00

Changes

• Add documentation explaining clone-db workflow.

Context for reviewers

Setup

Code Review Verification Steps

As the original developer, I have

Satisfied acceptance criteria and met development standards

• Met the acceptance criteria, or will meet them in a subsequent PR
• Created/modified automated tests
• Update documentation in READMEs and/or onboarding guide

Ensured code standards are met (Original Developer)

• If any updated dependencies on Pipfile, also update dependencies in requirements.txt.
• Interactions with external systems are wrapped in try/except
• Error handling exists for unusual or missing values

Validated user-facing changes (if applicable)

• Tag @dotgov-designers in this PR's Reviewers for design review. If code is not user-facing, delete design reviewer checklist
• Verify new pages have been added to .pa11yci file so that they will be tested with our automated accessibility testing
• Checked keyboard navigability
• Tested general usability, landmarks, page header structure, and links with a screen reader (such as Voiceover or ANDI)

As a code reviewer, I have

Reviewed, tested, and left feedback about the changes

• Pulled this branch locally and tested it
• Verified code meets all checks above. Address any checks that are not satisfied
• Reviewed this code and left comments. Indicate if comments must be addressed before code is merged
• Checked that all code is adequately covered by tests
• Verify migrations are valid and do not conflict with existing migrations

Validated user-facing changes as a developer

Note: Multiple code reviewers can share the checklists above, a second reviewer should not make a duplicate checklist. All checks should be checked before approving, even those labeled N/A.

• New pages have been added to .pa11yci file so that they will be tested with our automated accessibility testing
• Checked keyboard navigability
• Meets all designs and user flows provided by design/product
• Tested general usability, landmarks, page header structure, and links with a screen reader (such as Voiceover or ANDI)
• (Rarely needed) Tested as both an analyst and applicant user

As a designer reviewer, I have

Verified that the changes match the de#tention

• Checked that the design translated visually
• Checked behavior. Comment any found issues or broken flows.
• Checked different states (empty, one, some, error)
• Checked for landmarks, page heading structure, and links

Validated user-facing changes as a designer

• Checked keyboard navigability
• Tested general usability, landmarks, page header structure, and links with a screen reader (such as Voiceover or ANDI)
• Tested with multiple browsers (check off which ones were used)
  • Chrome
  • Microsoft Edge
  • FireFox
  • Safari
• (Rarely needed) Tested as both an analyst and applicant user

References

• Code review best practices

Screenshots

[abroddrick]

@Matt-Spence can you add a section for "how to turn off the db copy in an emergency" with explicit steps for what people should do. If there were a time sensitive issue I think it may take a few mins to process what is being said here and the reverse engineer the commands to turn it off. It would help in a time sensitive situation to just have clear steps to follow for turning it off. I think it would be something like the following
Step 1:
Get the name of the correct service
cf spaces-users cisa-dotgov staging
output should look like:

The space user you want should look like xyz-example

step 2:
Remove the space develeper role by doing the following command
...

[Matt-Spence]

Can do, but one question: what value does that bring that pushing a change to the workflow itself doesn't?

[abroddrick]

The change to the workflow would require a PR review which immediately slows it down in an emergency as it adds the extra step of putting a PR up, asking someone to approve and waiting for them to see your message( or call) as well as waiting for them to look it over and approve. While you make a good point, this doc should mention "make a PR that deactivates this workflow"as an alternative way to stop the workflow; I do think the list of cf steps would still be better to have in the event that time is really critical.

[Matt-Spence]

Gotcha! Added a line at the top noting the other option.

[abroddrick]

Requesting one minor addition see comment

[abroddrick]

LGTM

[zandercymatics]

Found a tiny typo, but not blocking