BigDecimal was throwing an error here (in Rails 5) unless it received a string, but I think this is actually an issue with the way params were being passed in the relevant spec, as opposed to the controller itself.
These are the tests that are failing a lot across all builds, slowing
down everything in the pipe. It's better to skip these rather than
paying this huge toll. They can be restored once we spike a new CI service.
This enables toggling features as best fits us in each case. With this
new approach we can then toggle :customer_balance to an entire instance,
which is what we want in France.
This removes the following annoying deprecation warnings that happen in
each test.
```
DEPRECATION WARNING: You are trying to generate the URL for a named route called :main_app but no such route was found. In the future, this will result in an `ActionController::UrlGenerationError` exception. (called from process_action_with_route at /usr/s
rc/app/spec/support/controller_requests_helper.rb:49)
DEPRECATION WARNING: Passing the `use_route` option in functional tests are deprecated. Support for this option in the `process` method (and the related `get`, `head`, `post`, `patch`, `put` and `delete` helpers) will be removed in the next version without
replacement. Functional tests are essentially unit tests for controllers and they should not require knowledge to how the application's routes are configured. Instead, you should explicitly pass the appropiate params to the `process` method. Previously th
e engines guide also contained an incorrect example that recommended using this option to test an engine's controllers within the dummy application. That recommendation was incorrect and has since been corrected. Instead, you should override the `@routes`
variable in the test case with `Foo::Engine.routes`. See the updated engines guide for details. (called from process_action_with_route at /usr/src/app/spec/support/controller_requests_helper.rb:49)
```
Closes#6727.
This avoids the authorization of all the VOs of the hub, which will go
through VOs that may have become invalid due to their underlying product
not belonging to the supplier the hub has permissions with (or any other
data integrity issue).
This is utterly confusing for the user who is only given a generic error
and doesn't understand what's wrong with the particular VO they changed,
while it may be fine after all. What's more, this often results in
a customer support request, which then may end up with a dev finding out
which VO is broken.
Also, there's no point in loading them from DB if the users didn't touch
them.
This moves a step closer to having a simple and straightforward way to
configure the app's mail delivery which doesn't require to be a nuclear
engineer to troubleshoot mail issues.
It happens way too often that servers have mail config broken when
restarted or redeployed and it takes too much brain power to fix it. No
doubt; it's way too complex.
I chose to leave this page's form fields but "Send mails as" as
read-only. This other field is still used by instance manager to
troubleshoot mail issues.
#update_column(s) skips callbacks (which is useful), but it doesn't change the updated_at field on the record by default (which we should be doing in these cases).
This change is made in Spree 2.2 here: b367c629ce
Fixes#6435 i.e. If the customer paid for their order by Stripe/Paypal then the Enterprise needs to know that the order was cancelled in order to arrange a refund. Refunds are not automatically processed when an order is cancelled.
This will send a very basic email to the shop, it only includes a link to view the cancelled order in the admin area initially.
I created a CustomerOrderCancellation object here because orders can be cancelled in two ways (1) by the customer, so an email should be sent to the shop. (2) by the shop, so an email doesn't need to be sent. However the code for cancelling order happens in Order#cancel via the state machine. Rather than passing some sort of parameter into #cancel to indicate whether it is a customer or shop cancelled order it might be clearer to have a CustomerOrderCancellation object, there could be other differences between customer or shop cancelled orders in future maybe.
