The patches for bug 7001 removed the parseletter subroutine from C4::Letters without updating the talking tech script to use the new alternative.
Created attachment 11482 [details] [review] Bug 8606 - Talking Tech broken by Bug 7001 The patches for bug 7001 removed the parseletter subroutine from C4::Letters without updating the talking tech script to use the new alternative. This patch rectifies that situation.
Created attachment 11483 [details] [review] Bug 8606 - Talking Tech broken by Bug 7001 The patches for bug 7001 removed the parseletter subroutine from C4::Letters without updating the talking tech script to use the new alternative. This patch rectifies that situation.
Created attachment 11830 [details] [review] Bug 8606 - Talking Tech broken by Bug 7001 The patches for bug 7001 removed the parseletter subroutine from C4::Letters without updating the talking tech script to use the new alternative. This patch rectifies that situation. Signed-off-by: Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz>
QA Comments: No side effect possible. I don't tested the patch but it seems good. No blocker: * C4/Letters.pm FAIL forbidden patterns FAIL The patch introduces a forbidden pattern: withespace character (156) But I don't understand why do you use the | operator. I think you wanted to use the || operator and wrote $branchcode ||= '';
Created attachment 12359 [details] [review] Bug 8606 - Talking Tech broken by user-configurable slips feature - QA Followup
Created attachment 12360 [details] [review] Bug 8606 - Talking Tech broken by user-configurable slips feature - QA Followup
(In reply to comment #4) > QA Comments: > No side effect possible. I don't tested the patch but it seems good. > > No blocker: > * C4/Letters.pm FAIL > forbidden patterns FAIL > The patch introduces a forbidden pattern: withespace character (156) > > But I don't understand why do you use the | operator. I think you wanted to > use the || operator and wrote > $branchcode ||= ''; You are correct. The smallest followup ever written has been attached ; )
(In reply to comment #7) > You are correct. The smallest followup ever written has been attached ; ) Thank you Kyle. So I mark it as Passed QA.
Patch pushed to master I thin it's more a bugfix than en ENH. Switching to "normal" severity, probably expected for 3.8
Released in 3.10.0 (not needed in 3.8.x)