Skip to content
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

[Issue] Fix for communication.xml Handlers merging processs #29528

Closed
4 tasks
m2-assistant bot opened this issue Aug 13, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #28926
Closed
4 tasks

[Issue] Fix for communication.xml Handlers merging processs #29528

m2-assistant bot opened this issue Aug 13, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #28926
Assignees
Labels
Component: Communication Fixed in 2.4.x The issue has been fixed in 2.4-develop branch Issue: Confirmed Gate 3 Passed. Manual verification of the issue completed. Issue is confirmed Issue: Format is not valid Gate 1 Failed. Automatic verification of issue format is failed Priority: P2 A defect with this priority could have functionality issues which are not to expectations. Progress: done Reproduced on 2.4.x The issue has been reproduced on latest 2.4-develop branch Severity: S2 Major restrictions or short-term circumventions are required until a fix is available.

Comments

@m2-assistant
Copy link

m2-assistant bot commented Aug 13, 2020

This issue is automatically created based on existing pull request: #28926: Fix for communication.xml Handlers merging processs


Description (*)

This changes fixes the "handler" merging process into communication.xml files which currently overrides all the handlers with the last one created, ignoring it's different names as expected. Issue found during custom handler development for MCOM module where there was already a handler for a message.

Manual testing scenarios (*)

  1. Develop a module which defines two handlers, with different names, for a same request on communication.xml
  2. Check config after flush cache, it will only includes the last handler specified.

Contribution checklist (*)

  • Pull request has a meaningful description of its purpose
  • All commits are accompanied by meaningful commit messages
  • All new or changed code is covered with unit/integration tests (if applicable)
  • All automated tests passed successfully (all builds are green)
@ghost ghost assigned matiashidalgo Aug 13, 2020
@magento-engcom-team magento-engcom-team added the Issue: Format is not valid Gate 1 Failed. Automatic verification of issue format is failed label Aug 13, 2020
@ghost ghost added Progress: PR in progress Severity: S2 Major restrictions or short-term circumventions are required until a fix is available. Priority: P2 A defect with this priority could have functionality issues which are not to expectations. and removed Progress: ready for QA labels Aug 13, 2020
engcom-Foxtrot added a commit to matiashidalgo/magento2 that referenced this issue Sep 9, 2020
engcom-Foxtrot added a commit to matiashidalgo/magento2 that referenced this issue Sep 10, 2020
engcom-Foxtrot added a commit to matiashidalgo/magento2 that referenced this issue Sep 11, 2020
@m2-community-project m2-community-project bot added Progress: PR Created Indicates that Pull Request has been created to fix issue and removed Progress: PR in progress Progress: PR Created Indicates that Pull Request has been created to fix issue labels Sep 24, 2020
@m2-community-project m2-community-project bot added Progress: PR Created Indicates that Pull Request has been created to fix issue and removed Progress: PR Created Indicates that Pull Request has been created to fix issue labels Sep 24, 2020
@ghost ghost removed the Progress: PR Created Indicates that Pull Request has been created to fix issue label Oct 20, 2020
@engcom-Delta engcom-Delta self-assigned this Nov 18, 2020
@m2-assistant
Copy link
Author

m2-assistant bot commented Nov 18, 2020

Hi @engcom-Delta. Thank you for working on this issue.
In order to make sure that issue has enough information and ready for development, please read and check the following instruction: 👇

  • 1. Verify that issue has all the required information. (Preconditions, Steps to reproduce, Expected result, Actual result).

    DetailsIf the issue has a valid description, the label Issue: Format is valid will be added to the issue automatically. Please, edit issue description if needed, until label Issue: Format is valid appears.

  • 2. Verify that issue has a meaningful description and provides enough information to reproduce the issue. If the report is valid, add Issue: Clear Description label to the issue by yourself.

  • 3. Add Component: XXXXX label(s) to the ticket, indicating the components it may be related to.

  • 4. Verify that the issue is reproducible on 2.4-develop branch

    Details- Add the comment @magento give me 2.4-develop instance to deploy test instance on Magento infrastructure.
    - If the issue is reproducible on 2.4-develop branch, please, add the label Reproduced on 2.4.x.
    - If the issue is not reproducible, add your comment that issue is not reproducible and close the issue and stop verification process here!

  • 5. Add label Issue: Confirmed once verification is complete.

  • 6. Make sure that automatic system confirms that report has been added to the backlog.

@engcom-Delta engcom-Delta added Reproduced on 2.4.x The issue has been reproduced on latest 2.4-develop branch Issue: Confirmed Gate 3 Passed. Manual verification of the issue completed. Issue is confirmed labels Nov 18, 2020
@magento-engcom-team
Copy link
Contributor

✅ Confirmed by @engcom-Delta
Thank you for verifying the issue. Based on the provided information internal tickets MC-39141 were created

Issue Available: @engcom-Delta, You will be automatically unassigned. Contributors/Maintainers can claim this issue to continue. To reclaim and continue work, reassign the ticket to yourself.

@magento-engcom-team magento-engcom-team added the Fixed in 2.4.x The issue has been fixed in 2.4-develop branch label Dec 10, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Communication Fixed in 2.4.x The issue has been fixed in 2.4-develop branch Issue: Confirmed Gate 3 Passed. Manual verification of the issue completed. Issue is confirmed Issue: Format is not valid Gate 1 Failed. Automatic verification of issue format is failed Priority: P2 A defect with this priority could have functionality issues which are not to expectations. Progress: done Reproduced on 2.4.x The issue has been reproduced on latest 2.4-develop branch Severity: S2 Major restrictions or short-term circumventions are required until a fix is available.
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants