Bug 11224

Summary: C4::Acquisition need more UT, and more robust ones.
Product: Koha Reporter: Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro>
Component: AcquisitionsAssignee: Mathieu Saby <mathsabypro>
Status: CLOSED FIXED QA Contact: Testopia <testopia>
Severity: enhancement    
Priority: P5 - low CC: gmcharlt, kyle, liz
Version: Main   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Change sponsored?: --- Patch complexity: Small patch
Documentation contact: Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 11170    
Attachments: [PATCH] Bug 11224 : Add UT to subs of C4::Acquisition returning order(s)
[PATCH] Bug 11224 : Add UT to subs of C4::Acquisition returning order(s)
Bug 11224 : Add UT to subs of C4::Acquisition returning order(s)
Bug 11224 : Add UT to subs of C4::Acquisition returning order(s)

Description Mathieu Saby 2013-11-09 13:35:34 UTC

    
Comment 1 Mathieu Saby 2013-11-09 13:47:09 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 2 Mathieu Saby 2013-11-09 13:48:08 UTC
When this patch is pushed, I will provide other bugs for improving C4::Acquisition subs

Mathieu
Comment 3 Liz Rea 2013-11-19 21:24:15 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 4 Mathieu Saby 2013-11-19 22:51:11 UTC
Hi Liz
I see a new attachment but no change in status. Does it means you have signed off the patch?

Mathieu
Comment 5 Kyle M Hall 2013-11-22 19:01:44 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 6 Mathieu Saby 2013-12-07 13:16:15 UTC
Created attachment 23347 [details] [review]
Bug 11224 : Add UT to subs of C4::Acquisition returning order(s)

Patch rebased after the integration of BZ 11111
Comment 7 Mathieu Saby 2013-12-07 13:19:40 UTC
Note that with my patch, there will be no more need to add specific tests to check if a specific key is returned by a function. What you must do if a new key is added to the hash returned by a sub is to add the new keys in the array listing all expected keys for a sub.

So I suppressed the 2 new tests added by Jonathan for bz 11111 and I added the 2 new keys in the array of expected keys for SearchOrders sub.
I ran prove t/db_dependant/Acquisition.t with the rebased patch. All is correct.

Mathieu
Comment 8 Mathieu Saby 2014-02-17 07:16:15 UTC
Is there something preventing the pushing of this patch into master?
It blocks BZ 10758...

Mathieu
Comment 9 Galen Charlton 2014-03-10 16:49:05 UTC
Pushed to master, along with follow-ups to:

- tidy the code
- incorporate the test for bug 11777
- remove the unused bits from the UT for bug 10723 and mark the test that now checks the same functionality

Thanks, Mathieu!