30397 fix phone validation

[bobdev-94]

Issue: bcgov/entity#30397

Description of changes:

• Issue on the Dev

• Fixed.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of the namex license (Apache 2.0).

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR fixes phone number validation by replacing the string punctuation removal approach with a more robust regex-based solution that removes all non-digit characters.

Key changes:

• Replaces string.maketrans with re.sub for phone number cleaning
• Changes from removing only punctuation to removing all non-digit characters

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[severinbeauvais]

Namex API has version number somewhere. Can you please update it?

Eg: https://namex-dev.apps.silver.devops.gov.bc.ca/api/v1/meta/info

[severinbeauvais]

LGTM but wait for more reviews and consider CP's suggestion.

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 1 secret following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

Since your pull request originates from a forked repository, GitGuardian is not able to associate the secrets uncovered with secret incidents on your GitGuardian dashboard.
Skipping this check run and merging your pull request will create secret incidents on your GitGuardian dashboard.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secret in your pull request

GitGuardian id	GitGuardian status	Secret	Commit	Filename
9442085	Triggered	Generic Password	05ee813	api/.env.sample	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
2. Replace and store your secret safely. Learn here the best practices.
3. Revoke and rotate this secret.
4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider

• following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
• install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.

---

^{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}

[severinbeauvais]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 1 secret following the scan of your pull request.

Bobby, this is referring to a file you didn't change, but that was picked up in your rebase. Anyway, I think it's nothing that needs to be changed in your PR.

cc: @bolyachevets , looks like this was from your commit yesterday (#1883 and #1884).

[bolyachevets]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 1 secret following the scan of your pull request.

Bobby, this is referring to a file you didn't change, but that was picked up in your rebase. Anyway, I think it's nothing that needs to be changed in your PR.

cc: @bolyachevets , looks like this was from your commit yesterday (#1883 and #1884).

it is a generic placeholder username postgres/postgres for unit tests using local db - nothing to worry about

[loneil]

Not really anything to add other than the copilot notes (though the string import removal looks to be fine). First time looking at this repo myself as well.

Maybe could additionally be a good idea to extract the duplicate regex call to some normalize_phone_number helper function, then could be good to have a targetted unit test that tries out all the phone number options like

@pytest.mark.parametrize("input_phone,expected", [
    ("(555) 123-4567", "5551234567"),
    ("+1-555-123-4567", "15551234567"),
    ("555.123.4567", "5551234567"),
    ("555 123 4567", "5551234567"),
    ("5551234567", "5551234567"),
    ("", ""),
    (None, ""),
])
def test_normalize_phone_number(input_phone, expected):
    result = normalize_phone_number(input_phone or "")
    assert result == expected

[severinbeauvais]

The code changes look good to me.

[severinbeauvais]

@bobdev-94 , what do you think about create a unit test like Lucas suggested?

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[severinbeauvais]

LGTM!

But we will need a review from someone on the Names Team.

[severinbeauvais]

@stevenc987 , @eve-git , @mengdong19 Could you guys review this when you have a moment, please?