-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Registrar: adding deposit returns "Failed to create record" error #774
Comments
Do we experience this problem in prod as well? |
no such problem in production |
I can't reproduce it neither using What I did:
As a result, brand new invoice has been successfully created. There must be some special conditions missing. Perhaps you can reproduce it on staging? This way I can study database state. |
Artur: invoice number is taken from wrong range:
next invoice number query doesn't take account the invoice type. |
there are two separate ranges for two separate type of invoices - one for adding credit and the other for monthly summary invoices. Currently it seems that the type is disregarded on assigning the invoice nr to credit invoice and the number is taken from monthly range. |
so, we sorted problem out - invoice number range is wrong. someone has changed range in setup to smaller numbers and invoice number is taken as biggest existing + 1 from invoices table (no separate counter for it). |
this is still a bug then if setting the invoice number range (especially start from) does not apply when there is at least one invoice already generated (always biggest one existing +1). System should always check the configured range and try to use the lowest number available. |
|
Registrars' portal (/registrar/deposits) returns "Failed to create record" error on trying to add deposit
tested on branch #642
in billing view
Log for failing invoice creation : https://gist.github.com/ratM1n/885a1dfa3a585da19fa0669c074e30c7
Invoice number is taken from interval between 131050 - 149999 and last one successfully creatid is 131062
blocks #642, #772 and #759
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: