Fix type hint of customer-data updateSectionId parameters

[Vinai]

Description

The type hint wrongly indicates the parameter should be a number, where in fact it is a boolean.
It is passed through to the server side to the controller action
\Magento\Customer\Controller\Section\Load::execute()
where it is cast to a bool and passed as the $updateIds parameter to
\Magento\Customer\CustomerData\SectionPool::getSectionsData(),
and from there as the boolean parameter $forceUpdate to the \Magento\Customer\CustomerData\Section\Identifier::initMark()` method.

This PR introduces no backward incompatibilities, it only fixes the type
hint to make the code more readable and improve compatibility with static
code analysis tools.

Fixed Issues (if relevant)

I didn't bother first opening an issue about this small change.

Manual testing scenarios

None, since it's only a comment change.

Contribution checklist

• Pull request has a meaningful description of its purpose
• All commits are accompanied by meaningful commit messages
• All new or changed code is covered with unit/integration tests (if applicable)
• All automated tests passed successfully (all builds on Travis CI are green)

[magento-cicd2]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[magento-engcom-team]

Hi @Vinai. Thank you for your contribution
Here is some useful tips how you can test your changes using Magento test environment.
Add the comment under your pull request to deploy test or vanilla Magento instance:

• @magento-engcom-team give me test instance - deploy test instance based on Pull Request changes
• @magento-engcom-team give me new test instance - deploy NEW test instance based on Pull Request changes
• @magento-engcom-team give me {$VERSION} instance - deploy Vanilla Magento instance for Issue or Pull Request

For more details, please, review the Magento Contributor Assistant documentation

[Vinai]

I already signed the contributor license agreement years ago.

[orlangur]

@Vinai maybe CLA was changed? :) I had to re-sign few days ago as well.

[orlangur]

getFromServer: function (sectionNames, updateSectionId) {
            var parameters;

            sectionNames = sectionConfig.filterClientSideSections(sectionNames);
            parameters = _.isArray(sectionNames) ? {
                sections: sectionNames.join(',')
            } : [];
            parameters['update_section_id'] = updateSectionId;

The code looks quite confusing currently. Yeah, I see that second parameter of reload() is true or false but it does not really help when you read the method code.

Could you please rename those into something like

parameters['is_section_id_update_required'] = isSectionIdUpdateRequired;

(I didn't check exact semantics, naming is up to you). I believe such change will not be a BC break as well.

[Vinai]

I renamed the variable to be more intent revealng. The is or has prefix does not really work here, as it's not a state description, but rather a command. I chose forceNewSectionTimestamp since that is a name that clearly identifies the purpose and type of the parameter for me.

[Vinai]

Why is the Travis build not starting? And it’s not only this PR...

[Vinai]

For reference a copy of a chat on slack:

orlangur [8:23 AM]
I already looked into that PR
parameters['update_section_id'] = forceNewSectionTimestamp;
had a talk with core guys regarding BC and left part of this
what do you think about renamin request parameter as well?
according to my understanding it will not break anything, just will require additional request for section data once

Vinai Kopp [8:25 AM]
Well, wouldn’t a parameter name change be a bc break?
Personally I think it would be good to choose a more expressive name.
Any customizations that might use that parameter would break.

orlangur [8:26 AM]
there is no such explicit rule and in this case it will break only in rare chance of customization of this controller
so, please change parameter name as well

Vinai Kopp [8:27 AM]
Okay, will do.

[orlangur]

Why is the Travis build not starting? And it’s not only this PR...

@Vinai no idea yet, Magento guys are aware of it.

[magento-engcom-team]

Hi @orlangur, thank you for the review.
ENGCOM-2104 has been created to process this Pull Request

[magento-engcom-team]

Hi @Vinai. Thank you for your contribution.
We will aim to release these changes as part of 2.2.8.
Please check the release notes for final confirmation.

Please, consider to port this solution to 2.3 release line.
You may use Porting tool to port commits automatically.