feat: include detailed shipment and instrument data from questionary

[yoganandaness]

Description

This pull request significantly enhances the process of creating asset equipment containers for EAM by extracting and including detailed shipment, sender, and instrument information in the request payload. It introduces a helper function to fetch answers from questionaries, expands the data sent to EAM, and adds a comprehensive test for the request payload structure.

Motivation and Context

Feature Expansion & Data Collection

How Has This Been Tested

Added a new test (AddAssetEquipment.spec.ts) to verify that the generated payload includes all required fields and matches the expected structure, improving confidence in the integration.…in the EAM asset creation payload.

Fixes

Changes

Feature Expansion & Data Collection:

• Added a getAnswer helper function to retrieve specific answers from questionaries, supporting different data types and handling optional/required fields. This enables dynamic extraction of shipment and sender details.
• Updated createContainer to collect additional data (weight, dimensions, dangerous goods details, sender information, parcel value, associated instruments, etc.) from the shipment's questionary and the instrument data source. [1] [2]

Request Payload & Integration:

• Modified getAddAssetEquipmentRequestPayload to accept and include the new fields, mapping them to the appropriate EAM custom fields (USERDEFINEDAREA.CUSTOMFIELD). This ensures all relevant shipment and sender data are transmitted to EAM. [1] [2]

Depends on

Tests included/Docs Updated?

• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All relevant doc has been updated

[jekabs-karklins]

Looks very good 👍🏻

[simonfernandes]

Just a small thing: it looks like the mutation would prevent an empty list, so is this check redundant? Or if it is still needed, should there be an earlier return from this function so that data isn't deleted from shipments_has_samples first?

[yoganandaness]

@simonfernandes Valuable point that. It is absolutely redundant and does not make sense to have a business check in the datasource layer. I have removed that and now the check only stays in the business layer(Mutation).