http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11224 mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |Needs Signoff Patch complexity|--- |Small patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11224 mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|koha-bugs@lists.koha-commun |mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.f |ity.org |r -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11224 --- Comment #4 from mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> --- Hi Liz I see a new attachment but no change in status. Does it means you have signed off the patch? Mathieu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11224 --- Comment #5 from Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> --- Created attachment 23106 --> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=23106&action=edit Bug 11224 : Add UT to subs of C4::Acquisition returning order(s) C4::Acquisition need more UT, and more robust ones. This patch adds UT to - GetOrder - GetOrders - GetCancelledOrders - GetLateOrders It refactors UT for SearchOrders New UT use 2 new subs, used for check the list of fields returns by a sub. _check_fields_of_order _check_fields_of_orders These 2 subs could later be used by other UT _check_fields_of_order has its own UT (tests n°14,15,16). They should maybe be commented after this patch is QAed. to test : prove t/db_dependent/Acquisition.t -v Signed-off-by: Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> Unit tests pass, passes koha-qa. Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> Passes koha-qa and t -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11224 Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Signed Off |Passed QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11224 --- Comment #7 from mathieu saby <mathieu.saby@univ-rennes2.fr> --- 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11224 Galen Charlton <gmcharlt@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Passed QA |Pushed to Master CC| |gmcharlt@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Galen Charlton <gmcharlt@gmail.com> --- 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! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11224 Fridolin SOMERS <fridolyn.somers@biblibre.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |11170 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.