Update Estimate fields/record_refs for 2021.2 #496
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A couple were missing for my use case, so I updated them based on 2021.2
This effectively removes the
balance
andbill_is_residential
fields.Best I can tell going back to 2014.1, they were never fields. Perhaps
this was a bad copy-paste when first introducing
Estimate
usinganother record as a starting point?
is_multi_ship_to
was also removed as it's technically a field ofTransactionSearchRowBasic
, notEstimate
. It never could have beenset, and at best it only could have been read after a search. Ideally
it'd be reintroduced in the future as an expansion on the work in #483,
extracting a common module to represent the fields from
TransactionSearchRowBasic
.bill_address
was also removed as it last appeared in 2014.1. Now it's afield of
TransactionSearchRowBasic
, so it could be re-introducedlater, like above.
billing_schedule
was corrected to be arecord_ref
.accountingBookDetailList
,partnersList
,salesTeamList
,shipGroupList
, andtaxDetailsList
are still missing asrecord_refs
as their corresponding classes haven't been implemented yet.
I improved the
have_field
matcher to optionally take a class argumentfor testing the fields that are represented by special classes.
I deviated from the standard style of multiple-fields-per-line-wrapped
for a single-field-per-line style. I found the old style hard to read,
particularly when the fields fell out of alphabetical order, when
scanning to see either what fields were available, or what fields were
already supported. I'd imagine this'll make for cleaner git diffs in the
future too.