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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Adds Client-side Violations when creating money requests #32528
Adds Client-side Violations when creating money requests #32528
Changes from all commits
e4135d1
8fe667d
1cd0e08
22ee011
441788c
0cf233c
6f84a87
57f2aa8
f6f9cac
9a041cc
150487e
5b8bcc5
b2128e5
6c30158
705329c
c93a59d
b6e959f
f0c609b
dbf3e5a
9783c47
66d2767
3c0b52c
1547445
6c3a853
633199b
919f967
9885e31
4b6f463
0f91f22
e5b607e
a8741ab
8d417a9
34c080e
ab06fbe
da3469e
9b2fb39
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR caused a regression #38131 as we don't want to show those violations when a transaction is a "partial transaction", see also #38131 (comment)
So, we need to add a check for partial transactions when adding violations data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why the change from a single
transaction
, to severaltransaction.property
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That was an auto-fix from prettier/the linter, I didn't intentionally make this change. I'm not sure why it applied to one hook and not the other, I'll take a look.
That said, this is probably more accurate as to whether the hook should re-run, as it's going to be looking at values more directly instead of the whole object (which can pretty easily change identity even if all the values are equivalent, depending on the data source's implementation).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like when I used the auto-fix function to add
policy
, etc, to the dependency array, the auto-fix also updated the array to match everything it expected, including being more specific about the args. Like I said before, usingtransaction
here isn't technically wrong, it's just probably less good.That said I just pushed an update to remove the unnecessary change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I got an error
I think the
policy
data is not yet found. Either we go with the multiple onyx or use thereport.policyID
instead.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated to use
report.policyID
.