Add options to PromotionCode::BatchBuilder and spec for unique promotion code contention #2579
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
houndci-bot
reviewed
Feb 15, 2018
| delegate attr, to: self | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def initialize(promotion_code_batch, options={}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Surrounding space missing in default value assignment.
jhawthorn
force-pushed
the
promotion_batch_options
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fe2584f to
0d44f96
Compare
|
Failure should be fixed by #2580 |
tvdeyen
approved these changes
Feb 16, 2018
| define_singleton_method(:"#{attr}=") do |val| | ||
| Spree::Deprecation.warn "#{name}.#{attr}= is deprecated. Use #{name}::DEFAULT_OPTIONS[:#{attr}]= instead" | ||
| DEFAULT_OPTIONS[attr] = val | ||
| end |
| @promotion_code_batch = promotion_code_batch | ||
| @options = DEFAULT_OPTIONS.merge(options) |
kennyadsl
approved these changes
Feb 16, 2018
| @promotion_code_batch = promotion_code_batch | ||
| @options = DEFAULT_OPTIONS.merge(options) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree with @tvdeyen , attr_reader for @options will make this class more consistent.
This deprecates the existing class-attributes in favour of having a defaults option hash. This allows creating instances of BatchBuilder with different rules than the defaults. This makes testing different rules a lot easier and may allow for per-batch settings in the future.
Previously we had an issue where BatchBuilder would create the wrong number of promotion codes if it encountered a conflict. Out specs didn't catch this. This commit adds an additional spec which runs the BatchBuilder with settings that make it extremely likely that there will a conflict: from a space of 100 possible codes (00 to 99) we generate 50. An online birthday problem calculator tells me this is 99.99997% likely that the generator will encounter at least one conflict. That seems plenty. I haven't verified this, but intuitively it seems very likely.
jhawthorn
force-pushed
the
promotion_batch_options
branch
from
77a5319 to
17f0ef0
Compare
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.
The issue fixed by #2578 wasn't caught by our specs. It was hard to write a spec to test that issue because the
PromotionCode::BatchBuilderwas configured byclass_attributes.This PR deprecates the existing class-attributes in favour of having a defaults option hash.
It uses this to add an additional spec which runs the BatchBuilder with settings that make it extremely likely that there will a conflict: from a space of 100 possible codes (
00to99) we generate 50.An online birthday problem calculator tells me this is 99.99997% likely that the generator will encounter at least one conflict. That seems plenty. I haven't verified this, but intuitively it seems very likely.
This would have caught the issue prior to #2578