Remove after_rollback from LogEntry #2280
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is trying to assign the payment's source to source. Not only is that the wrong thing to do (a payment is the source of a log_entry), but since it's being built through the payment.log_entries association, it will have no effect. Sometimes two wrongs do make a right!
|
we're not quite sure why referencing a source would cause a rollback. All we can think is for the case where this fix seems like it will remove the association between spree_log_entries and payments, which will surely make debugging harder, no? I'd say a more defensive fix would be or or even This would eliminate the awkward after_rollback construction but also keep the association (when there really is a payment record to associate) (keeping the removal of the after_rollback itself) |
This is not being changed here. |
|
Oh ok I misunderstood in that case. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow up to #2277 #564
after_rollbackhas all kinds of problems. When it's run as part of our specs, the filter happens after our spec run (each spec is run inside a transaction), meaning that extra useless blank log entries end up in our database. Gross!In core's test suite:
I don't think we ever want this, if we were rolling back a log entry, we would also be rolling back a state change on a payment, which is bad.
This is similar to bc19fcb