Tidy supplementary billing code - second pass #208
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We've been working quickly to get supplementary billing completed on time. This means we haven't always been able to spend as much time as we'd like on some of the finer details -- documentation, consistency of standards, naming conventions, etc. This PR is a second pass at spotting these things and amending them.
StuAA78
added
the
housekeeping
Although not part of our supplementary billing, we spotted redundant `return await` statements in `RequestLib` and `LegacyRequestLib`, which we remove
In `DetermineChargePeriodService` we were creating a variable for each timestamp, defaulting to `financialYearEndDate` if the timestamp is `null`, then using `Math.min()` to find the earliest of these -- the defaulting is required as a `null` value would be counted as `0` by `Math.min()`. We can streamline this and cut the number of lines required by simply putting the original values into an array then filtering out the `null` values, then passing our array values to `Math.min()`.
While refactoring `ProcessBillingBatchService` we've identified a couple of ways we can restructure the process. This will be handled in a separate PR; for now, we simply refactor code into helper functions which more accurately describe the flow of the process
We're using `.filter()` to filter out null timestamps. Just prior to submitting the PR for review we realised our `.filter(timestamp => timestamp)` didn't fit our standard of always putting brackets around single params. We therefore fix this, along with one other instance we spotted in the code.
Cruikshanks
approved these changes
May 5, 2023
Comment on lines
+36
to
+45
| // We use .filter() to remove any null timestamps, as Math.min() assumes a value of `0` for these | ||
| const endDateTimestamps = [ | ||
| financialYearEndDate, | ||
| chargeVersionEndDate, | ||
| licenceExpiredDate, | ||
| licencelapsedDate, | ||
| licencerevokedDate | ||
| ) | ||
| chargeVersion.endDate, | ||
| chargeVersion.licence.expiredDate, | ||
| chargeVersion.licence.lapsedDate, | ||
| chargeVersion.licence.revokedDate | ||
| ].filter((timestamp) => timestamp) | ||
|
|
||
| const earliestEndDateTimestamp = Math.min(...endDateTimestamps) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We've been working quickly to get supplementary billing completed on time. This means we haven't always been able to spend as much time as we'd like on some of the finer details -- documentation, consistency of standards, naming conventions, etc. Following our first pass, this PR is a second pass at spotting these things and amending them.
Note that while refactoring
ProcessBillingBatchServicewe identified a couple of ways we can restructure the process. This will be handled in a separate PR; for now, we have simply refactored code into helper functions which more accurately describe the flow of the process.