This was actually shown in one place and represents a user-facing
change. But you weren't able to edit the field which means that only
very old enterprises would have had this field set and were not able to
change it anymore.
I searched au-prod and found the following values in the database:
- "Friday 31st January"
- "From 4pm, Monday 30 September"
- "From 5pm-7pm Monday"
- "Saturday 27 April 12noon"
- "January 31st/February 1st"
- "Saturday 1st February"
They seem specific to a certain order cycle and have no value as
fallback any more. Seems safe to remove.
Using the clever concurrency testing borrowed from SubscriptionPlacementJob, but I thought a shorter pause time (just 100ms) would be sufficient.
I considered doing this with a new 'state' field (upcoming/open/close), but decided to keep it simple.
Before if a shipping method was shared between multiple distributors it could only be disabled/enabled on that order cycle for all the distributors which have that shipping method e.g. you couldn't select that shipping method for one distributor but disable it for another.
Instead we will make sure the order cycle is not available on the shopfront if it is doesn't have valid shipping methods. This will preven the issue where if one distributor deletes their shipping method, we don't want to invalidate the order cycle for all other distributors.
Co-authored-by: Maikel <maikel@email.org.au>
It's a clearer name because 'preferred' implies there could be other unpreferred shipping methods available as well.
Co-authored-by: Maikel <maikel@email.org.au>
It makes things much simpler if we return all shipping methods by default without needing OrderCycleShippingMethod records to be added to the database.
Co-authored-by: Maikel <maikel@email.org.au>
The `eql?` override has been added in very early commits but was
actually not used except in a test. It also caused performance problems
since each call to `eql?` would issue two database queries. A developer
would unknowingly trigger these when using `exchanges.uniq`. A mistake
that could have happened again in the future.
I moved the implementation to the test that was actually using it and
made a second test a bit more explicit.
