Feat/3431, allow 3 as citizenship value

[andrew-jameson]

Summary of Changes

Provide a brief summary of changes
Pull request closes #3431

How to Test

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• Each TANF Active and Closed file T2, T3, and T5 allows 3 as a valid input for Category 3 checks related to Citizenship/Immigration Status.
• Update T2 Cat 3 check: When Item 30 (Family Affiliation) = 1, then Item 42 (Citizenship/Immigration Status) must be one of (1, 2, 3).
• Update T3 Cat 3 Check When Item 67 (Family Affiliation) = 1, then Item 76 (Citizenship/Immigration Status) must be one of (1, 2**, 3**).
• Update T3 Cat 3 Check When Item 67 (Family Affiliation) = 2, then Item 76 (Citizenship/Immigration Status) must be one of (1, 2, 3, 9).
  In T5:
• Update T5 Cat 3 Check When Item 14 (Family Affiliation) is 1, then Item 25 (Citizenship/Immigration Status) must be between 1 and 3.

• lfrohlich and/or adpennington confirmed that ACs are met.

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

• Are all areas of code introduced in this PR meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces backend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces frontend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
• Are code coverage minimums met?
  • Frontend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)
  • Backend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

• Are backend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are frontend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are code maintainability principles being followed?

Deliverable 4: Accessible

• Does this PR complete the epic?
• Are links included to any other gov-approved PRs associated with epic?
• Does PR include documentation for Raft's a11y review?
• Did automated and manual testing with iamjolly and ttran-hub using Accessibility Insights reveal any errors introduced in this PR?

Deliverable 5: Deployed

• Was the code successfully deployed via automated CircleCI process to development on Cloud.gov?

Deliverable 6: Documented

• Does this PR provide background for why coding decisions were made?
• If this PR introduces backend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces frontend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces dependencies, are their licenses documented?
• Can reviewer explain and take ownership of these elements presented in this code review?

Deliverable 7: Secure

• Does the OWASP Scan pass on CircleCI?
• Do manual code review and manual testing detect any new security issues?
• If new issues detected, is investigation and/or remediation plan documented?

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

• the purpose of the research
• methods used to conduct the research
• who participated in the research
• what was tested and how
• impact of research on TDP
• (if applicable) final design mockups produced for TDP development

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.43%. Comparing base (e67e58a) to head (28a2ef6).
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3447   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    91.43%   91.43%           
========================================
  Files          300      300           
  Lines         8647     8647           
  Branches       640      640           
========================================
  Hits          7906     7906           
  Misses         621      621           
  Partials       120      120           

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	91.29% <ø> (ø)
dev-frontend	92.44% <ø> (ø)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tanf/t2.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tanf/t3.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/tanf/t5.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...backend/tdpservice/parsers/validators/category3.py	97.70% <ø> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4849833...28a2ef6. Read the comment docs.

[andrew-jameson]

This was at linter limit length 120 characters, just did this range instead of 1 or 2 or 3