[REF] Remove handling for non-existent 'savedMapping' field

[eileenmcnaughton]

Overview

[REF] Remove handling for non-existent 'savedMapping' field

Before

The mapField class has handling for the field savedMapping - however this field is NOT present on the mapField form - it IS present on the DataSource form - but that isn't accessed by the mapField class - so I can't see any way the inside of the removed IF is reachable.

MapField does have the field saveMapping - the difference is not a typo - the field on DataSource would ideally be saved_mapping_id whereas saveMapping is an instruction to save the mapping

After

poof

Technical Details

This pattern is repeated across all the MapField classes so my analysis here is right then I can remove in the others too

Comments

I did an r-run in the Membership import

[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).

[eileenmcnaughton]

Remember to use w=1 to make this readable....https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core/pull/23283/files?w=1

[darrick]

I ran headlong into this when I was trying to create a function to submit imports via the command line. I started with the importCSV you are familiar with. So I had to unset this variable in the submittedFields before calling the forms post_process.

[eileenmcnaughton]

@darrick it looks like this is stale so I would need to rebase to bring back to life - are you saying a rebased version of this SHOULD be merged?

[eileenmcnaughton]

Also - I should note @darrick - my hope is that there will be a simple way to run the import in the end - the goal is that we can use the civicrm_queue table - which requires it to be easily runabe

[eileenmcnaughton]

OK - it's rebased - if you are able to confirm you agree with the change I should be able to get someone to merge it

[eileenmcnaughton]

@mlutfy do you feel you could merge this too?

[darrick]

I did revisit this again last night as I was unsure exactly how forms were processed. I can confirm this PR does what is intended.

[eileenmcnaughton]

@darrick ie - you are saying it should be merged?

[darrick]

@eileenmcnaughton yes.