dev/core#1386 Allow advanced search for contributions without a soft credit related

[francescbassas]

https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/core/issues/1386

[civibot]

(Standard links)

• If this is your first pull-request for CiviCRM, please browse CONTRIBUTING.md for information about the development and testing processes.
• If you are reviewing this pull-request, you may wish to consult the test sites and the Review Standards (long template, short template).

[francescbassas]

test this please

[BettyDolfing]

test this please

[jaapjansma]

Betty and I are reviewing PR's and we came across this PR.

• General standards
  • Explain (r-explain)
    • PASS : The goal/problem/solution have been adequately explained in the PR and in the issue.
  • User impact (r-user)
    • ISSUE: The change would noticeably impact the user-experience but does not require training.
    • COMMENTS: We would suggest renaming the list of options to:
      • Contributions Only
      • Soft Credits Only
      • Soft Credits with related Hard Credit Contributions and their related soft credit
      • Contributions (only) without a soft credit
      • Both All
  • Documentation (r-doc)
    • PASS: The changes do not require documentation.
  • Run it (r-run)
    • PASS: We have tested this PR and it works.
• Developer standards
  • Technical impact (r-tech)
    • PASS: The change preserves compatibility with existing callers/code/downstream.
  • Code quality (r-code)
    • PASS: The functionality, purpose, and style of the code seems clear+sensible.
    • COMMENTS: We have given this pass. However the added option has a name which is unclear to us.
  • Maintainability (r-maint)
    • PASS: The change is trivial enough that it does not require tests.
  • Test results (r-test)
    • PASS: The test results are all-clear.

@francescbassas could have a look at our remark on the user impact? Are you able to rename the options so it becomes a bit more clear.

[francescbassas]

Options renamed. Thanks for the review.

[jaapjansma]

Betty and I have tested the changes and this pr is ready to be merged.
However we do think it might be good to refactor/redesign the find contributions screen and how the drop down of soft credits fits into it However that is a lot of work and out of the scope of this PR.

@eileenmcnaughton or @mattwire could one of you merge this PR?

[eileenmcnaughton]

I actually disagree that this change is trivial enough it doesn't require tests- we have had no end of problems with soft- credit related search features & I think in general adding any new feature to search or reports requires a test.

However, it's merged now - and we got the queue down a bit

[eileenmcnaughton]

Update - @seamuslee001 has written the missing test!