Caught by a failing test t/db_dependent/Circulation/CalcFine.t .. 1/7 # Failed test 'Amount is calculated correctly' # at t/db_dependent/Circulation/CalcFine.t line 271. # got: '0' # expected: '6' # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2. introduced by bug 37943
Created attachment 173722 [details] [review] Bug 38303: Set item's replacement price to defaultreplacecost if 0.00 No idea if this is a real bug. This code is fixing the following test failure: t/db_dependent/Circulation/CalcFine.t .. 1/7 # Failed test 'Amount is calculated correctly' # at t/db_dependent/Circulation/CalcFine.t line 271. # got: '0' # expected: '6' # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2.
Created attachment 173730 [details] [review] Bug 38303: Set item's replacement price to defaultreplacecost if 0.00 No idea if this is a real bug. This code is fixing the following test failure: t/db_dependent/Circulation/CalcFine.t .. 1/7 # Failed test 'Amount is calculated correctly' # at t/db_dependent/Circulation/CalcFine.t line 271. # got: '0' # expected: '6' # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2. Signed-off-by: David Nind <david@davidnind.com>
Not sure how, but bisecting pointed to bug 37943.
Yes, because of the discard_changes call.
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #4) > Yes, because of the discard_changes call. Isn't this highlighting something else?
Created attachment 173746 [details] [review] Bug 38303: Set item's replacement price to defaultreplacecost if 0.00 No idea if this is a real bug. This code is fixing the following test failure: t/db_dependent/Circulation/CalcFine.t .. 1/7 # Failed test 'Amount is calculated correctly' # at t/db_dependent/Circulation/CalcFine.t line 271. # got: '0' # expected: '6' # Looks like you failed 1 test of 2. Signed-off-by: David Nind <david@davidnind.com> Signed-off-by: Aleisha Amohia <aleishaamohia@hotmail.com>
(In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen) from comment #5) > (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #4) > > Yes, because of the discard_changes call. > > Isn't this highlighting something else? Maybe, but I didn't find anything bad. It highlighted this problem at least.
Pushed for 24.11! Well done everyone, thank you!
Backported to 24.05.x for upcoming 24.05.06
Pushed to 23.11.x for 23.11.11
Not pushed to LTS. Marked Resolved. If you feel this should be in LTS please reply with your reason.