Issue 2488: boundary diagram updates

[ADPennington]

Summary of Changes

• Updates boundary diagrams to include SendGrid e-mail API and nginx server that blocks traffic from outside US/US territories
• boundary diagram that includes sftp file transfers to TDRS also updated.

Pull request closes #2488

How to Test

List the steps to test the PR
These steps are generic, please adjust as necessary.

cd tdrs-frontend && docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.local.yml up -d
cd tdrs-backend && docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml -f docker-compose.local.yml up -d 

1. Open http://localhost:3000/ and sign in.
2. Proceed with functional tests as described herein.
3. Test steps should be captured in the demo GIF(s) and/or screenshots below.

Demo GIF(s) and screenshots for testing procedure

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• boundary diagram updated to reflect nginx reverse proxy
• boundary diagram updated to reflect sendgrid implementation
• 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

Merging #2770 (d89d79b) into develop (e5ccc2c) will increase coverage by 0.27%.
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.
The diff coverage is 82.27%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2770      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    92.80%   93.08%   +0.27%     
===========================================
  Files          246      246              
  Lines         5576     5611      +35     
  Branches       480      491      +11     
===========================================
+ Hits          5175     5223      +48     
+ Misses         308      290      -18     
- Partials        93       98       +5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	93.13% <82.27%> (+0.33%)	⬆️
dev-frontend	92.83% <ø> (ø)

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

Files	Coverage Δ
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/parsers/models.py	92.06% <ø> (-1.69%)	⬇️
tdrs-backend/tdpservice/parsers/row_schema.py	93.02% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
...s-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/header.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/ssp/m1.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/ssp/m2.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/ssp/m3.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/ssp/m4.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/ssp/m5.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/ssp/m6.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s-backend/tdpservice/parsers/schema_defs/ssp/m7.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 12 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

---

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 ae1abca...d89d79b. Read the comment docs.

[raftmsohani]

The main reason of having that Nginx is to serve the frontend app, so I suggest changing the wording to:

"All web users will log into the system through their web browsers. An Nginx server sits in front of each frontend application to serve the frontend application as well as acting as a reverse proxy which blocks traffic to TDP from outside the US/US territories. For traffic within the US/US territories:"

[raftmsohani]

LGTM!

[ADPennington]

@raftmsohani can you merge this one when you get a chance?