Is there any already-programmed method to get the last correctly-paid order for a given subscription?
$subscription->get_last_order() will return the last associated order, no matter if that order involved a correct-payment or not.
$subscription->get_related_orders() will return the whole list of orders, and the list can include pending-payment or failed orders.
I think if you wrap / trigger $subscription->get_last_order() with the woocommerce_subscription_payment_complete action (https://docs.woocommerce.com/document/subscriptions/develop/action-reference/) you would essentially achieve that objective. That hook fires both for initial subscription orders and renewal orders and will ensure the $last_order is paid for. Something like this:
add_action( 'woocommerce_subscription_payment_complete', 'set_last_order' );
function set_last_order( $subscription ) {
$last_order = $subscription->get_last_order( 'all', 'any' );
// If you want to be able to reference that $last_order at any time
// then you could just save/update that order ID to post meta so
// that you can grab it any time outside of the action.
}
}
I know that seems a little clunky, but it's the best way I can think of. The only other option that comes to mind would be to loop through $subscription->get_related_orders() checking is_paid() from high IDs to low IDs and grabbing the first one from there.
Related
I am Using User event aftersubmit on Sales order to add/update line item. As soon as line item updated shipping cost should recalculate. I am using real time shipping method and cost.
Now If I change item manually, I need to click ‘calculate’ button under Shipping tab, which calculate and update shipping cost. But when I add/update line item using user event, it became ZERO.
Is there any way to calculate shipping cost by script? Is there any way to run functionality of native ‘calculate’ shipping cost button by script?
For your case i.e User event, we need a dynamic record to do this, so load a dynamic Sales Order record, using id from the Standard record in User Event context:-
var drSalesOrder = record.load({type: record.Type.SALES_ORDER, id: salesOrderId, isDynamic: true});
Then doing the following operations in this order(will calculate and set the shipping cost on the order):-
drSalesOrder.setValue({fieldId: 'shipcarrier', value: 'nonups'});
drSalesOrder.setValue({fieldId: 'shipmethod', value: SHIP_ITEMS.FedEx_Ground}); // your shipmethod id here
drSalesOrder.setValue({fieldId: 'shippingcostoverridden', value: true});
drSalesOrder.save({ignoreMandatoryFields: true, enableSourcing: true});
Not natively. We do the calculation by overriding the page element on pageInit, and adding other operations before running the native NS API call.
I know this question is old but on my case I cant get these answers to work (although its the same what is in SuiteAnswer), and I was stuck for some hours trying to retrigger the computation of shipping cost.
What I did is to call the calculateRates() Netsuite's function on saveRecord function in client script. I am lucky the client does not require this in the server. Although its not the correct way but its more okay than not working :)
const saveRecord = (context) => { Shipping.calculateRates(); return true; }
Hope this helps. Thank you!
I am developing a transaction workflow capsule, and I use the function transaction.retrieve() to get order data from the platform. But it returns only part of the order data.
MyReceipt is a structure stored the order informations, it is defined like this:
structure (MyReceipt) {
description (order info)
// properties
features { activity}
}
And it is built as a output concept of Commit Action, like this
action (CommitRequest) {
type (Commit)
description ()
collect {
// MyRequest
}
output (MyReceipt)
}
I try to get data like this
transaction.retrieve("bixby.MyCapsule.MyReceipt")
It is supposed to return all the MyReceipt Data. But it return only part of the Receipt data.Is it right to get all the orders? Or is there other ways to get all the receipt data?
And I have found the sample code use it just like this to get the last Receipt data
transaction.retrieve("bixby.MyCapsule.MyReceipt", "ALL", 1)
but it doesn't explain what these two parameter "ALL" and 1 represent for. And I want to get more details about the usage of this function.
Could you plz tell me how to use the function transaction.retrieve() or other function to get all the Receipt historical data, and How can I check out the transaction data for someone when I try to find the cause of the issue.
Copy the answer from dogethis. (Thanks, man! You do the hard work, I took credit)
We have the DOC ready online here
Basically, ALL is the default to get all state of transaction data, and 1 means only one record. The API page was not there before, so thanks for let us know.
I think it's the 1 cause you not get all record, but it does has a limit 20...
Have fun with Bixby!
I've got a question regarding outside-aggregate validation.
In our domain partner can place orders that contain certain products (1).
Once order is placed (2) he can mark it as paid (3) in our system.
Once order is marked as paid (4) we assign licences to products in external library service (5).
Once we know licences are assigned (6) we close entire saga.
Here's a small drawing illustrating the process:
At this moment besides commands, command handlers and events there are two domain classes that are involved in entire process:
Order aggregate containing business logic
Order saga coordinating entire process and assigning licences
Now, there is one invariant that is not modelled in this process yet - before we mark order as paid we have to check if user does not already have particular licence assigned. We get this from library service as well.
Where would you put this validation? Command handler? Wrap Order in some domain service? Pass some validator to Order constructor?
class Order
{
public function __construct(OrderValidator $validator)
{
if (!$validator->isValid($this)) {
throw new \DomainException();
}
// else proceed
}
}
class OrderValidator
{
private $libraryServiceClient;
public function isValid(Order $order)
{
// check licence using $libraryServiceClient
}
}
As far as I understood the problem is in step 3 (Mark order as payed). In this step we need a user (let's call it payer) that marks the order as payed. So when creating this payer object (using factory maybe) we need to know if he is allowed to mark an order as payed. In order to get this information a call should be made to the external library.
What I suggest is to have an application service that have ->markOrderAsPayed($orderId, $payerUserId)
This method will make a call to 2 domain services. One for getting the payer and one for marking the order as payed.
$payer = $this->payerService->getPayer($payerUserId);
$this->orderService->payOrder($orderId, $payer);
In the getPayer() function you should make a call to the external library to know how many licences the payer have.
I hope this will be helpful, it is just based on what I understood from the questions and comments.
I am scraping an 90K record database using JSON-RPC and I am trying to put in some basic error checking. I want to start by scraping the database twice using two different settings and adding a prefix to the second scrape. This way I can check to ensure that the two settings are not producing different records (due to dropped updates, etc). I wanted to implement the comparison using a view which compares each document from the first scrape with it's twin produced by the second scrape and then emit the names of records with a difference between them.
However, I cannot quite figure out how to pull in another doc in the view, everything I have read only discusses external docs using the emit() function, which is too late to permit me to compare it. In the example below, the lookup() function would grab the referenced document.
Is this just not possible?
function(doc) {
if(doc._id.slice(0,1)!=='$' && doc._id.slice(0,1)!== "_"){
var otherDoc = lookup('$test" + doc._id);
if(otherDoc){
var keys = doc.value.keys();
var same = true;
keys.forEach(function(key) {
if ((key.slice(0,1) !== '_') && (key.slice(0,1) !=='$') && (key!=='expires')) {
if (!Object.equal(otherDoc[key], doc[key])) {
same = false;
}
}
});
if(!same){
emit(doc._id, 1);
}
}
}
}
Context
You are correct that this is not possible in CouchDB. The whole point of the map function is that it must be idempotent, otherwise you lose all the other nice benefits of a pre-calculated index.
This is why you cannot access external resources in the map function, whether they be other records or the clock. Any time you run a map you must always get the same result if you put the same record into it. Since there are no relationships between records in CouchDB, you cannot promise that this is possible.
Solution
However, you can still achieve your end goal, just be different means. Some possibilities...
Assuming there is some meaningful numeric value in each doc, you could use a view to take the sum of all those values and group them by which import you did ({key: <batch id>, value: <meaningful number>}). Then compare the two numbers in your client or the browser to see if they match.
A brute force approach would be to use a view to pair the docs that should match. Each doc is on a different row, but they're grouped by a common field. Then iterate through the entire index comparing the pairs. This would certainly be the quickest to code and doesn't depend on your application or data.
Implement a validation function to enforce a schema on your data. Just be warned that this will reduce your write throughput since each written record will be piped out of Erlang and into the JS engine. Also, this is only applicable if you're worried about properly formed records instead of their precise content, which might not be the case.
Instead of your different batch jobs creating different docs, have them place them into the same doc. The structure might look like this: { "_id": "something meaningful", "batch_one": { ..data.. }, "batch_two": { ..data.. } } Then your validation function could compare them or you could create a view that indexes all the docs that don't match. All depends on where in your pipeline you want to do the error checking and correction.
Personally I like the last option better, but only if you don't plan to use the database as is in production. Ie., you wouldn't want to carry around all that extra data in each record.
Hope that helps.
Cheers.
I have a cakephp 1.3 application and I have run into a 'data leak' security hole. I am looking for the best solution using cake and not just something that will work. The application is a grade tracking system that lets teachers enter grades and students can retrieve their grades. Everything is working as expected but when I started to audit security I found that the basic CRUD operations have leaks. Meaning that student X can see student Y's grades. Students should only see their own grades. I will limit this questions to the read operation.
Using cake, I have a grade_controller.php file with this view function:
function view($id = null) {
// Extra, not related code removed
$this->set('grade', $this->grade->read(null, $id));
}
And
http://localhost/grade/view/5
Shows the grade for student $id=5. That's great. But if student #5 manipulates the URL and changes it to a 6, person #6's grades are shown. The classic data leak security hole.
I had two thoughts on the best way to resolve this. 1) I can add checks to every CRUD operations called in the controller. Or 2) add code to the model (for example using beforeFind()) to check if person X has access to that data element.
Option #1 seems like it is time consuming and error prone.
Option #2 seem like the best way to go. But, it required calling find() before some operations. The read() example above never executes beforeFind() and there is no beforeRead() callback.
Suggestions?
Instead of having a generic read() in your controller, you should move ALL finds, queries..etc into the respective model.
Then, go through each model and add any type of security checks you need on any finds that need to be restricted. 1) it will be much more DRY coding, and 2) you'll better be able to manage security risks like this since you know where all your queries are held.
For your example, I would create a getGrade($id) method in my Grade model and check the student_id field (or whatever) against your Auth user id CakeSession::read("Auth.User.id");
You could also build some generic method(s) similar to is_owner() to re-use the same logic throughout multiple methods.
If CakePHP supports isAuthorized, here's something you could do:
Create a column, that has the types of users (eg. 'student', 'teacher', ...)
Now, it the type of User is 'student', you can limit their access, to view only their data. An example of isAuthorized is as follows. I am allowing the student to edit only their profile information. You can extend the concept.
if ((($role['User']['role'] & $this->user_type['student']) == $this->user_type['student']) {
if (in_array($this->action, array('view')) == true) {
$id = $this->params->pass[0];
if ($id == $user_id) {
return (true);
}
}
}
}