Handle different payments with same transaction id#124
Conversation
|
Any idea why tests fail? I couldn't see the obvious reason why the helper wouldn't work in this test but works in others. |
joneskoo
left a comment
joneskoo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At least the test needs some fixes. I'd like to hear some reasoning for the unique_together set.
| def row_to_payment(row): | ||
| try: | ||
| p = Payment.objects.get(transaction_id__exact=row['transaction']) | ||
| # Search first for from already imported rows |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Search first
forfrom already imported rows
| def row_to_payment(row): | ||
| try: | ||
| p = Payment.objects.get(transaction_id__exact=row['transaction']) | ||
| # Search first for from already imported rows |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we add a comment here csvbills#L112-L122 BillDictReader.next() that row_to_payment is sensitive to changes in the data cleaning done in the next function?
Meaning if something was imported with old version, this would fail in later version as the normalization will be different.
| ("can_import_payments", "Can import payment data"), | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| unique_together = ('reference_number', 'transaction_id', 'message') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on the original issue description, I'd have thought it'd be better to unique transaction_id and payment_day, not reference number and message?
I don't know why we have payment_day is a DateTimeField, and not just a date, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is true, fixed in newest commit.
| error = "The sample file should have contained only one payment" | ||
| self.assertEqual(Payment.objects.count(), 1, error) | ||
| with open(data_file("procountor-csv-single.csv"), 'r') as f: | ||
| process_procountor_csv(f) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the reason for doing this twice on the same input file? Should this be two tests?
annttu
force-pushed
the
payment_imports
branch
from
335ac6b to
39a0690
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #124 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 74.67% 74.83% +0.15%
==========================================
Files 53 54 +1
Lines 5173 5205 +32
==========================================
+ Hits 3863 3895 +32
Misses 1310 1310
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
3 participants
Fix situation where two different payments from different years have same transaction id but different reference numbers and/or messages.
CSV exports from Procountor have transaction id without year thus making duplicate transaction ids from different years possible.
Also fixes transaction id field length (ref. finanssiala.fi )