Please consider the situation where a product has extra SKU parts in it's custom options. The product may have a SKU product and the custom option has option, the end result will automatically be product-option.
Now go into the admin and attempt to order this product with a custom price, the custom option becomes an 'additional option' and the extra -option is missing. My store (enterprise 1.8) needs these SKUs to be intact but I need help making a fix for this. I expect I will have to override Mage_Adminhtml_Model_Sales_Order_Create at some point and that's OK.
I've googled this problem until my fingers are numb but cannot even find mention of it let alone a confirmed fix. Please point me at the cause of the problem.
This was hard to track down because it seemed intermittent. I'm answering myself in detail because I don't want anyone else to go through the same ordeal.
The problem stemmed from custom options which both added a custom SKU and contained a colon in their title. If you look closely in the following picture you can just see two colons in "Colors::Black" - the first is the option's name, the second is added by Magento. When updating the order it attempts to parse the custom options back from that text box and the extra colon throws a spanner.
The other bad thing is because Magento cannot read the custom option back that particular option gets dropped. In this case it's a required option, which leads to a warning message.
Since the option is missing so is it's SKU part. Other custom options are not affected which clouds the issue. The simple answer to all this is to just avoid colons.
Related
What I want:
I have created a script in the Script Editor that makes your first
line item in a cart free. I want this script to execute once per customer.
My question:
What is the syntax to limit a script to execute once per customer
through the use of the Script Editor app?
Business use case:
Without adding this functionality to my script, a customer could
checkout with 1 item free... but then they could begin shopping again
and checkout with a new cart with the first line item free again... that
means they could get 10 free items from 10 different checkouts.
Thanks for your time and thoughts!
P.S. Script is in Ruby. Also, Setting up a discount code won't work for my use case.
UPDATE
Thank you for your responses. I will be attempting these suggested updates this week and will post my results soon.
UPDATE 2
So the below suggestions and marked answer were all spot on except for one detail. The script editor keeps on running into some type of error even though the described syntax below is correct. Another stackoverflow answer suggested to use '&'.
So I ended up doing something like this:
customer = Input.cart.customer
if customer&.tags&.include?("gift_received")
...
end
This works for me. Thanks again for all your answers!
Any kind of solution could only work if Accounts are required
otherwise you can't track the history of orders.
There are two possible solutions
You create a flow that assigns a tag to a customer when they receive a gift. You check for the tag : Input.cart.customer.tags.include?('gift_received') and don't apply the discount.
If your case is just 'Gift on the first order' you can just check Input.cart.customer.orders_count > 0 and that's it.
Um. You can always just assign a little tag to the customer. For example, if they received this free item, give them a tag on their first order. Now, if they try and fool you nine more times, check for that tag. If they have it, remove the item from checkout. Boom. problem solved.
I have created a script in the Script Editor that makes your first line item in a cart free. I want this script to execute once per customer.
The best way is to flag customers using tags. You can use Shopify flows to add tags to orders containing free gifts to mark customers as the customers who received already free gifts. This will be better than checking Input.cart.customer.orders_count > 0 because it will give you more visibility in the orders & customers panel.
The approach mentioned by #Fabio Filippi is the best however it needs to be secured:
You create a flow that assigns a tag to a customer when they receive a gift. You check for the tag : Input.cart.customer.tags.include?('gift_received') and don't apply the discount.
Business use case:
Without adding this functionality to my script, a customer could checkout with 1 item free... but then they could begin shopping again and checkout with a new cart with the first line item free again... that means they could get 10 free items from 10 different checkouts.
Nothing prevents the user from creating a new account so you need to consider some verification logic that will be assigning the gift_received tag after the customer is validated.
If you want to avoid fraud I would consider using both (note that in this case we are checking if customer already bought something in the past) Input.cart.customer.orders_count > 1 and Input.cart.customer.tags.include?('gift_received') OR Input.cart.customer.tags.include?('gift_received') and Input.cart.customer.total_spent > Money.new(cents: 1000). This way you can have "eligible for gift" kind of logic. There are many ways to approach it.
Hope some1 can help.
I copied this grid from another WP and seems like its not working. No clue why. Checked all I can but it doesnt work. In the other WP it works properly with another grids.
Any ideas?
Check the columns in the new grid. Does it have the same attributes than the source grid?
If you copied them from a different KB, it is highly possible that the attributes does not keep the same...
The specifier tries to find to which table the attributes belong. Don't think 'it should work because I copied it from a working wkp' , instead think 'some attribute is messing the specification' and take one by one out until it works, check if the obtained table is the desired one or another one. If it is the desired one, then the last attribute you withdrew is the one messing up the specification process. If it is another table than the desired one, try to withdraw from the grid the remaining attributes and put the ones you withdrew before back into the grid, and repeat the process. At some point you will understand which one is messing up. Also keep in mind that there might be other places with attributes, such as in the 'Load Event', they also influence the process.
It means that Genexus can not resolve the base table, you may be using (or referencing) attributes of different transactions and genexus can not resolve the relationship between them.
Seems like once you set the Testers field on a Test Case in MTM, it will not allow you to clear it. You are only allowed to change it to a different value. Has anyone found a way to clear this field?
It is important to not get the "Assigned" Tester field confused with the Assigned To field. They are distinct fields on a Test Case work item. One reason why someone might want the Tester field to be blank is if a team all pitches in to help with testing during an iteration and leaving the assigned tester blank allows the team to know that no one has "picked up" this test to execute. The team member could then assign the test to his or herself and execute it.
The template pulls the Assigned Tester Values from a list using the 'AllowedValues' tag. Instead, simply change this to 'SuggestedValues'. That will allow for empty values - easy as that.
If you'd rather not allow free entry, you can also add a default value such as 'None' and use that rather than blank.
Unless you've customized your work item type, this field should never be blank after being saved. It defaults to the person who created the bug in all Microsoft supported process templates, and a value is required by default.
That being said, why would you want to change it to blank?
If you really, really want to be able to blank it out (which I don't think is a good idea at all), you'll need to customize your template. See the below guidance:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms243849(v=vs.110).aspx
I am unable to change the order of modules in Joomla1.6. I tried by clicking the order option . But there are many modules with the same order number and it does not move up or down even after using the arrow keys.
Any thoughts?
Reorder them yourself. Type in 1,2,3,4, etc. according to the manner you want them to be in, then click the 'save' icon next to the order header.
Then refresh your page to ensure they've reorganized appropriately.
When ordering anything in Joomla, make sure the list you are looking at it ordered by the ordering column first. Most times you can not change ordering at all, unless your list is sorted by ordering first.
I know this is a very old question, and Joomla is currently 3.4.8, soon to release 3.5, and the above instructions do not apply any longer, but I thought I should add a small detail here.
In case you are working with a complex template that has many pre-installed modules at various module positions, you may come up with this:Module ordering may not work properly if you are filtering the results in the module manager using a search keyword.
Make sure that you clear search, navigate to the position you need re-arranged (ideally, use the filters on the left column to only show that specific position) and then re-arrange. It should work.
Took me a while to realize.
I've long thought (but never practiced for some reason) that a dropdown menu that is dynamically generated and only contains one item, should automatically select that item. This would opposed to the typical approach that I've observed where a blank entry is made at the top and you still have to interact with the menu to make the single available selection.
An example is when I login to my online banking and select "View Paper Statements". I've only got one account so the next step in the process is to present me with a dropdown where I have to select that single account to proceed. In this case, by implementing the solution above, it would take one less click to select the account and proceed to viewing it. Even better in this case would be to eliminate the dropdown menu step altogether and go right to the statement.
Can you think of a case where auto-select of a single item would produce undesirable results?
Can you think of a case where auto-select of a single item would produce undesirable results?
Yes - any case where the user has the option not to select any option.
In your bank account example, pre-selecting the only value makes sense. But if you have e.g. some kind of form where users can provide voluntary information, they will need the possiblity to leave that field blank or otherwise give a possible incorrect answer.
So it really should depend on the nature of the data in that dropdown whether pre-selection is a good idea or not.
I completely agree, in the case you describe. But there are times where you want to force the user to make a selection actively -- e.g., when the value of the field is somehow optional or additive.
In your case, without selecting an account, there's probably no useful way to proceed, so automatic selection does make sense. But for example, an application I'm working on allows the user to specify a number of descriptive fields (movie metadata, basically -- title, release year, genre, etc.), many of which are optional, and some of them are represented by drop-down menus. Allowing the user to leave the default selection blank lets him tell us, effectively, "I don't want to use this field," so we leave it blank, and the data remains clean.
Just one example, although you're right -- in your case, I can see how that'd be annoying. :)
If there is truly only one possibility you shouldn't ask a user to decide between Option A. (Bad grammar to illustrate the point)
If the field can be left blank, it's not an option with a single answer. Instead you have a choice between Option A "meaningful data" and Option B "".
Iif list has blank option but the form does not allow that to be blank, it's a choice between Option A. (Bad grammar to illustrate the point)
Sometimes you want the user to explicitly select an option, even when it's the only option. If the option is selected automatically, the user may never even realise it, even though they may not be happy with the result.
For example, I'm reviewing my savings account on my internet bank site. Then I go to set up a payment. As it happens, I'm not allowed to make payments from my savings account, so the payment form automatically selects my only other account. If I don't notice this then I will end up making the payment from my other account when I was expecting to use my savings account. If I had known, I wouldn't have made the payment at all.
Perhaps this is slightly contrived. But unless you can be certain that the user will be happy with the (only) choice, you should ensure that they choose it explicitly.
I agree. If there's only one item in the dropdown and it's required that the user select something, then just default to the single item. I can't think of any negative effects of this (but I'm certainly not a UI expert)
What I like to do in this instance depends on a few factors.
If the dropdown is a required field and ends up with only one item due to dynamic generation, I try to avoid displaying it as a dropdown entirely. I end up showing it as an uneditable text field instead (or not displaying it at all if it isn't necessary). Why make it even look like it's a choice when it isn't?
If the dropdown is not required, then it makes total sense to display a blank choice in addition to the single value.
If it's REQ and there's a single record/value .. I'd try and change the control to a Display field rather than the Drop Down.