-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 814
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CRM-20008 fix pending flow. #10030
CRM-20008 fix pending flow. #10030
Conversation
@@ -4548,43 +4548,52 @@ public static function completeOrder(&$input, &$ids, $objects, $transaction, $re | |||
} | |||
$dao->free(); | |||
|
|||
$membershipParams['num_terms'] = $contribution->getNumTermsByContributionAndMembershipType( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
change is just indentation - the if -else block
); | ||
|
||
$dates['join_date'] = $currentMembership['join_date']; | ||
if (CRM_Core_PseudoConstant::getLabel('CRM_Contribute_BAO_Contribution', 'contribution_status_id', CRM_Utils_Array::value('contribution_status_id', $input)) === 'Pending') { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is a change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work!! Yeah, makes sense to add coverage for the whole process.
} | ||
else { | ||
$membershipParams['num_terms'] = $contribution->getNumTermsByContributionAndMembershipType( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
but the else block is just formatting
bbe3ead
to
2b5fb2d
Compare
This adds a test written by Peter Hartmann for repeattransaction with pending status. I altered is a little, working on the assumption the flow should be - create pending, leave status unchanged - complete pending, updte status & advance end date
Jenkins re test this please |
@eileenmcnaughton just re-testing to check git scan works and everything is hunky dory after your merge of the previous pull |
@h-c-c Can you confirm if you have tested this / read the code & feel it is good to merge. I need to get some review before I can merge. I feel quite good about the test case adding coverage for the scenario Note that most of the change is moving code |
This looks correct to me no num_terms if we are pending otherwise check as per previous |
Thanks @seamuslee001 - merging |
This adds a test written by Peter Hartmann for repeattransaction with pending status.
I altered is a little, working on the assumption the flow should be