Replace live bill run checking in engine #843
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
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4416 https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4379 We spotted an issue with removing a bill from a bill run not setting the supplementary flags on a the licences involved correctly. We've fixed that, but its led to our QA team rigorously re-creating bill runs over and over. Doing this they spotted we did have an issue with the `CheckLiveBillRunService` that we fixed in [Fix broken CheckLiveBillRunService](#841). Now they've spotted something else. `CheckLiveBillRunService` includes batch type as a filter. This means it _will_ allow you to create a supplementary bill run, for example, even if another type of bill run is 'in progress' (queued, processing, or ready). AT the time we thought that was ok but now we know better. We had actually spotted this in our work to migrate the setup bill run journey (see [Handle bill run setup matches an existing bill run](#810)). We hoped we'd be using our version of the journey by now and we could quietly retire `CheckLiveBillRunService` as part of ongoing maintenance and no one would be any the wiser (it has been live for 7 months now!) But our QA team would rather clear the issues currently found before bringing in the new setup journey for testing. So, rather than fix the service, we'll replace it with `DetermineBlockingBillRunService` which matches what the legacy service does and deals with this scenario.
Cruikshanks
added
the
housekeeping
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4416
https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-4379
We spotted an issue with removing a bill from a bill run and it not setting the supplementary flags on the licences involved correctly. We've fixed that, but it's led to our QA team rigorously re-creating bill runs over and over.
Doing this they spotted we did have an issue with the
CheckLiveBillRunServicethat we fixed in Fix broken CheckLiveBillRunService.Now they've spotted something else.
CheckLiveBillRunServiceincludes batch type as a filter. This means it will allow you to create a supplementary bill run, for example, even if another type of bill run is 'in progress' (queued, processing, or ready). At the time we thought that was ok but now we know better.We spotted this in our work to migrate the setup bill run journey (see Handle bill run setup matches an existing bill run). We hoped we'd be using our version of the journey by now and we could quietly retire
CheckLiveBillRunServiceas part of ongoing maintenance and no one would be any the wiser (it has been live for 7 months now!)However, our QA team would rather clear the issues currently found before bringing in the new setup journey for testing.
So, rather than fix the service, we'll replace it with
DetermineBlockingBillRunServicewhich matches what the legacy service does and deals with this scenario.