-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 825
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
dev/financial#40 Fix for non-allocation of payment to fully reversed checkboxes option #15740
Conversation
This addresses an issue partially identified in https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/financial/issues/98 whereby civicrm_entity_financial_trxn records for the civicrm_financial_item table are not created when refunding against line items with a quantity of zero - ie where there were selected checkboxes & they were reversed. The reason this check was there relates to former logic - now we have a calculated allocation we don't need this check. I want to do a test but need to do a bit of work to get it set up & I think this should hit 5.20 as it relates to an issue identified by Kevin in reviewing patches merged to that version
(Standard links)
|
I ran this through the same I used my client databse filled with checkboxes and all sorts of oddities Contributions look good: Bookkeeping report ties out - all DR and CR Database Tables look good Contributions:
Line Items:
Financial Transactions
I think this is good to merge. We'll do more testing in 5.20 RC to shake out any issues, but this looks great. |
Overview
Fixes an issue whereby
civicrm_entity_financial_trxn records for the civicrm_financial_item table are not created when
refunding against line items with a quantity of zero - ie where there were selected checkboxes & they were reversed.
Before
-> no entity_financial_trxn records are created linking the financial_items to the refund payment. The refund payment is thus missing on the bookkeeping report
After
entity_financial_trxn records created
Technical Details
https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/financial/issues/98
The reason this check was there relates to former logic - now we have a calculated allocation
we don't need this check.
I want to do a test but need to do a bit of work to get it set up & I think this should hit 5.20
as it relates to an issue identified by @kcristiano in reviewing patches merged to that version
Comments