-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
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
feat(core-flows): manage inventory reservation of claims and exchanges #8448
feat(core-flows): manage inventory reservation of claims and exchanges #8448
Conversation
…re/order-exchange-2
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
6 Skipped Deployments
|
|
….com/medusajs/medusa into feat/claim-exchange-manage-inventory
…t/claim-exchange-manage-inventory
….com/medusajs/medusa into feat/claim-exchange-manage-inventory
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.
LGTM
when({ input }, ({ input }) => { | ||
return !input.skipInventoryCheck | ||
}).then(() => { | ||
confirmInventoryStep(confirmInventoryInput) | ||
}) |
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.
question: Does it make sense for this check to live inside the confirmVariantInventoryWorkflow
? Shouldn't it be outside of it when you consume it?
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.
Well, this is a good point.
I think it makes sense to separate in a util the portion to format the input to confirm/reserve inventory, from the inventory check.
I will open a follow up PR organizing that.
No description provided.