Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Maintain the same Stripe Customer across multiple cards #77
Maintain the same Stripe Customer across multiple cards #77
Changes from all commits
3870668
41a2852
be15193
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I guess the ternary can become:
response.params['customer'] || response.params['id']
. Currentlyresponse.params['customer']
isnil
when not reusing a customer, but we can make it a little more future proof withresponse.params['customer'].presence
, so it will work properly also if we start receiving empty-string values.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.
In general I would agree with you, but I think in context with the line that follows, it's a bit more complicated. As you can see, both ternaries use the same setup with
options[:customer] ?
.So I think there's an argument for keeping the logic parallel between the two, even if the first one could be made shorter.
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.
The first 100 lines here are still almost identical to the ones in stripe_checkout.spec. I think that all this duplication may become an issue in the future, as changes in one file will need to be ported to the other, for example if something changes on Solidus FE flow.
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.
Good point. I’ve moved this to a
checkout_helper
, into a method calledinitialize_checkout
. This deduplicates almost all of the code that was shared betweenstripe_checkout_spec
andstripe_customer_spec
.