There are two types of linked variant associations: source and target, so we need to keep the name there.
But when cloning a variant and retaining a link as source, we will prefer the general term 'linked variant'. Hopefully this name works well.
I think I was just following convention from existing relationships. Perhaps you could argue that a variant is affected by the links added/removed.. but we never look at updated_at so really there's no point at all.
I tried to avoid it but rubocop made me move it. I think maybe it will need to go into a concern or service class later, but hopefully it's ok here for now.
Preload the allow list once in the controller. This controller was initially set up to avoid instance variables, and pass variables explicitly to the template. That's a good principle, but in practice we have a growing list of variables passed down the chain to multiple partials which is getting cumbersome. I think instance variables have their place after all.
Co-authored-by: dacook <4188088+dacook@users.noreply.github.com>
Thanks co-pilot for sending me in the right direction.
Would this be neater as a has_and_belongs_to_many? Maybe but I will try to keep moving.
Tried using the rails generator, but as usual it was a waste of time becuase it doesn't handle unusual cases.
I found more good guidance from that stackoverflow post:
> why are you worrying about your indexes? Build your app!
Something's not right in the model, see next commit.
The permission is effectively the feature toggle. Users can choose to use it, but shouldn't expect it all to work perfectly yet.
When it's considered full featured, we just need to update the translation. Hm... I hope that's not too painful.🤞
For now, we will only be able to create sourced variant from variants that are visible to us (variants that we manage)
In a later commit I will hide the option if you can't use it
There's no "COPY OF" product in the spec setup, so we don't need to check that it's not there. (unless maybe we added that to the product factory, but it seems unlikely).
Also we can use helper method.
These tests are about browsing products, not performing actions.
Well, ok there's one about updating, which should probably go in the update file. But hey this is better than before.
And admittedly the "Actions" file covers three different things, not just the actions menu. shrug.
We now include the refunded amount in the email to the customer. When
voiding a payment, it's the full amount of the payment. When giving back
credit then it's only the money that has been paid too much.
At closer inspection, almost all logic around which payment actions to
display involves only the state of the payment. So I moved the logic
there.
We now have one list of all possible actions supported by the UX. Then
payment methods can declare a list of supported actions. If that's
conditional, they can implement the conditions themselves. The payment
model itself then still filters the actions based on its state.
Previously, payment actions that were listed without an associated
`can_?` method were interpreted as supported. All payment methods are
implementing all `can_?` methods for listed actions though. And I think
that new payment methods should explicitely implement all `can_?`
methods instead of relying on this hidden logic.
We currently ask the credit card first which payment actions like "void"
it supports. But all the logic is not card specifc. It depends on the
payment method which actions it supports.
And instead of having two different classes potentially being the source
of truth for actions, I prefer leaving that responsibility with exactly
one class, the payment method.
I'll move the `can_?` methods next.
Enterprise have access to the internal payment method by default.
The access is handled at the application level so we don't have to
manage database links.
