[ic] Inconsistent order numbers - SOLVED

[Kevin Old]

On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 22:04, Kevin Old wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 17:45, Dan Browning wrote:
> > At 05:06 PM 4/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Hello everyone,
> > >
> > >I am using the iTransact module in 4.9.7 and setting the following in
> > >iTransact.pm
> > >
> > >my $company = $opt->{company} || "$::Variable->{COMPANY} Order
> > >$opt->{order_id}";
> > >         $Session->{mv_order_number} = $opt->{order_id};
> > >
> > >so that my order numbers in IC will match the ID that iTransact uses.
> > >This was all working in 4.9.6 without any problems.  I have not changed
> > >any routes or code.
> > >
> > >The 2 emails that are sent from IC have the iTransact order_id in the
> > >mv_order_number field.  However the receipt.html page (calling for
> > >[value mv_order_number] ) and everything printed in the
> > >catalogdirectory/logs/log file and everything in the database is the
> > >TEST000* number.
> > >
> > >I have already checked and turned off test mode.
> > >
> > >Can someone please shed some light on any changes made from 4.9.6 to
> > >4.9.7 that would cause this?
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Kevin
> > 
> > What version of 4.9.7?  If you are using CVS, a date would be handy (like 
> > "03-04", etc.).  A change that Mike recently made in CVS was the following 
> > (on Mar 29)...
> > 
> > User:      heins
> > Date:      2003-03-29 22:11:08 GMT
> > Modified:  lib/Vend Order.pm
> > Log:
> > * Allow $Session->{mv_order_number} to be set anywhere.
> > 
> > Revision  Changes    Path
> > 2.47      +8 -2      interchange/lib/Vend/Order.pm
> > 
> > 
> > rev 2.47, prev_rev 2.46
> > Index: Order.pm
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /var/cvs/interchange/lib/Vend/Order.pm,v
> > retrieving revision 2.46
> > retrieving revision 2.47
> > diff -u -r2.46 -r2.47
> > --- Order.pm    29 Mar 2003 20:19:20 -0000      2.46
> > +++ Order.pm    29 Mar 2003 22:11:08 -0000      2.47
> > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >   # Vend::Order - Interchange order routing routines
> >   #
> > -# $Id: Order.pm,v 2.46 2003/03/29 20:19:20 mheins Exp $
> > +# $Id: Order.pm,v 2.47 2003/03/29 22:11:08 mheins Exp $
> >   #
> >   # Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Red Hat, Inc. <interchange@redhat.com>
> >   #
> > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
> >   package Vend::Order;
> >   require Exporter;
> > 
> > -$VERSION = substr(q$Revision: 2.46 $, 10);
> > +$VERSION = substr(q$Revision: 2.47 $, 10);
> > 
> >   @ISA = qw(Exporter);
> > 
> > @@ -1581,6 +1581,12 @@
> >                                  $shelf->{$_} = [ @$cart ];
> >                                  push @main, $_;
> >                          }
> > +               }
> > +
> > +               if($Vend::Session->{mv_order_number}) {
> > +                       $value_save->{mv_order_number} =
> > +                               $::Values->{mv_order_number} =
> > +                                       $Vend::Session->{mv_order_number};
> >                  }
> > 
> >                  $Vend::Interpolate::Values = $::Values = { %$value_save };
> > 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of those changes.  This is very weird though.  All of the
> emails that have the mv_order_number in them are correct.  But the order
> creation and receipt page show whatever the next number is in
> order.number.
> 
> I'll try to get the previous version of Order.pm and see if the problem
> still happens.
> 
> Is there a better place for me to set the order number so that I get the
> order-id returned from iTransact?
> 
> Any help is appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin

Dan,

Well, I was aware of those change and went and checked the version of
the file in the CVS source directory I downloaded and it was 2.47 - the
version Mike added the code so that mv_order_number could be set
anywhere.  I got to thinking about it and just wanted to make sure I had
the right version and I went to /usr/lib/interchange/lib/Vend and looked
at the version of Order.pm in there and it was 2.45.  I copied the newer
version over the old one and it works like a charm.  But, that doesn't
explain why 2.45 was installed.  This was a fresh installation from the
CVS source.

Any ideas?


Thanks,
Kevin

-- 
Kevin Old <kold@carolina.rr.com>