feat(farmer_demo): seed large commercial farm with idle land for CEL demo (#1119)

[emjay0921]

Why is this change needed?

Docs Scenario 5 (Climate Resilience) STEP 4 contrasts the qualifying smallholder against EC1 — a large commercial farm (50 ha, idle) to show the CEL r.is_group == true and is_smallholder and farm_size_idle > 0 rejecting it on is_smallholder even though it has idle land. No demo farm had both is_smallholder = False (size above the 5 ha threshold) and farm_size_idle > 0, so this exclusion couldn't be demonstrated (OP#1119).

How was the change implemented?

• Added blueprint bp_22_ec1_large_commercial_idle to FARMER_BLUEPRINTS: a 50 ha crop farm (count: 1) with idle_pct: 0.1 (≈5 ha fallow) and all program eligibility False (it's the deliberate rejection example). 50 ha > 5 ha threshold ⇒ is_smallholder = False, and farm_size_idle > 0.
• The blueprint generator already supports idle_pct, so no generator changes were needed. EC1 is volume-generated, matching the docs (USE_CASES Story 9 / EC1).

New unit tests

• test_1119_ec1_large_commercial_not_smallholder_with_idle — generates the EC1 blueprint and asserts farm_total_size > smallholder threshold, is_smallholder == False, and farm_size_idle > 0.

Unit tests executed by the author

spp_farmer_registry_demo suite: 0 failed, 0 error(s) of 133 tests (fresh DB, --stop-after-init). The ~730 farm-count range tests remain green with the +1 farm.

How to test manually

1. Run the farmer demo data generator (with volume farms enabled).
2. Registry → Groups, filter/sort by farm size → open the 50 ha farm (EC1): confirm not a smallholder and idle/fallow land > 0.
3. Open Programs → Climate Resilience → Eligibility and confirm this farm is not eligible (fails is_smallholder), while a smallholder with idle land qualifies.

Related links

https://projects.acn.fr/work_packages/1119

[gemini-code-assist]

Caution

The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub has been sunset. All code review activity has officially ceased.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 66.78%. Comparing base (8532fa4) to head (e3452d8).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             19.0     #323      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.24%   66.78%   -5.46%     
==========================================
  Files         419      100     -319     
  Lines       29813     9789   -20024     
==========================================
- Hits        21539     6538   -15001     
+ Misses       8274     3251    -5023     

Flag	Coverage Δ
spp_analytics	?
spp_api_v2_change_request	?
spp_api_v2_cycles	?
spp_api_v2_data	?
spp_api_v2_entitlements	?
spp_api_v2_gis	?
spp_api_v2_programs	?
spp_api_v2_service_points	?
spp_attachment_av_scan	?
spp_base_common	91.07% <ø> (ø)
spp_change_request_v2	?
spp_claim_169	?
spp_cr_type_assign_program	?
spp_dci	?
spp_dci_client	?
spp_dci_client_compliance	?
spp_dci_client_crvs	?
spp_dci_client_dr	?
spp_dci_demo	?
spp_drims	?
spp_drims_sl_demo	?
spp_farmer_registry_cr	?
spp_farmer_registry_demo	61.06% <ø> (ø)
spp_grm_cel	?
spp_key_management	?
spp_mis_demo_v2	?
spp_oauth	?
spp_programs	65.27% <ø> (ø)
spp_registry	87.22% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️
spp_security	69.56% <ø> (ø)
spp_starter_sp_mis	?
spp_studio_change_requests	?

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...p_farmer_registry_demo/models/farmer_blueprints.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 320 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.

[gonzalesedwin1123]

Clean, minimal, and it delivers exactly what the docs promised. What I verified:

• idle_pct is a supported blueprint key (seeded_farm_generator.py:449), already used by two existing blueprints — so "no generator changes needed" is true.
• The test's threshold lookup (spp.farmer.smallholder_threshold, default "5.0") exactly mirrors the real is_smallholder compute (spp_farmer_registry/models/farm.py:165), so the test tracks the actual logic rather than a copy of it.
• docs/USE_CASES.md Story 9 already describes EC1 as implemented here — the data now matches the pre-existing docs, which is the right direction.
• The test asserts through the real generator (generate_all_farms([ec1])), not the blueprint dict.
• The blueprint matches its neighbours' schema, and all-False eligibility fits the deliberate rejection example.

Two items:

1. Blocker — version bump

Per the convention Edwin ruled on (see #391): bump + HISTORY in the PR, with the number assigned at merge-time rebase. Note this module now has a three-PR ordering — #412 already carries 19.0.2.1.2, so this and #322 take .3/.4 in whichever order they merge.

2. Minor — the USE_CASES inventory is now stale

docs/USE_CASES.md says "Total blueprints: 21. Total farms: ~730." and its blueprint table has no EC1 row — this PR makes both undercount. Please add the EC1 row and bump the totals (22 / ~731). Small, but that document is the reason this blueprint exists, so it should agree with it.

With those two, this is an approve.

[emjay0921]

Thanks — both done. Pushed as 33045f68.

1. Version bump — 19.0.2.1.4 with its HISTORY line, taking .4 against #412's .2 and #322's .3 as you set out.

2. The stale inventory — fixed. USE_CASES.md now carries an EC1 row in the blueprint table (1 farm, rural, crop, 50 ha, 20–30 years' experience, male head, 2 members) and the totals read 22 blueprints / ~731 farms. You are right that this is the document the blueprint exists to serve, so it disagreeing with the data was the wrong way round.

spp_farmer_registry_demo suite: 133 tests, 0 failed.