Skip to content
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/event#25 Fix regression on billing name overwrite #16140

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 23, 2019

Conversation

eileenmcnaughton
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

Fixes https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/event/issues/25 - where billing name can overwrite the first name

Before

See https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/event/issues/25 for good description

After

Doesn't overwrite first name.

Technical Details

https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/event/issues/25 was caused by b1b7f4e
where it started overwriting the name in that function.

In digging in the code I found that it seems that as long as we call this function before the processor all is
good so we should call right before the processor rather than broader contamination.

Also note ideally the settings bag would be used.

Comments

@mattwire

https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/event/issues/25 was caused by civicrm@b1b7f4e
where it started overwriting the name in that function.

In digging in the code I found that it seems that as long as we call this function before the processor all is
good so we should call right before the processor rather than broader contamination.

Also note ideally the settings bag would be used.
@civibot
Copy link

civibot bot commented Dec 22, 2019

(Standard links)

@civibot civibot bot added the 5.21 label Dec 22, 2019
@jitendrapurohit
Copy link
Contributor

I've tested this for the described issue in gitlab, multiple participant registrations, with multiple processors on a page, etc and looks fine to me.

I'm not sure what the block of primary participant did before this PR, but I don't see any problem after its removal. @eileenmcnaughton Do you think there's any case I should be worried about before approving? If not, I think we're good to merge this change 👍

@mattwire
Copy link
Contributor

Merging based on @jitendrapurohit review. I'm happy from a code point of view. @eileenmcnaughton Do we need a 5.20 backport?

@mattwire mattwire merged commit b5e21a2 into civicrm:5.21 Dec 23, 2019
@eileenmcnaughton eileenmcnaughton deleted the part_name branch December 23, 2019 20:13
@eileenmcnaughton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jitendrapurohit there is a lot of copy & paste in the participant code & stuff that did something once or is part of a house of cards...

@eileenmcnaughton
Copy link
Contributor Author

Here is the port #16140

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants