Dt 1157 #89
Dt 1157 #89
Conversation
| case RECEIVED -> then( | ||
| ScenarioType.DG.equals(scenarioType) || ScenarioType.REEFER.equals(scenarioType)? | ||
| shipper_GetBooking(bookingState).thenEither( | ||
| uc2_carrier_requestUpdateToBookingRequest().thenHappyPathFrom(PENDING_UPDATE, scenarioType), | ||
| uc5_carrier_confirmBookingRequest().thenHappyPathFrom(CONFIRMED, scenarioType)): | ||
| shipper_GetBooking(bookingState).then( | ||
| uc5_carrier_confirmBookingRequest().thenHappyPathFrom(CONFIRMED, scenarioType)) | ||
| ); | ||
| case START -> then(uc1_shipper_SubmitBookingRequest().thenHappyPathFrom(RECEIVED, scenarioType)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hard to read what is actually happening.
Also, I suspect the condition got inverted based on how scenarios are handled in eBL
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Flavia wanted to have the Update booking for DG and REEFER. Hence I have added this condition.
✅ SupplyCSP [DG] - UC1 - GET - UC2 - GET - UC3 - GET - UC5 - GET - UC12 - GET
✅ SupplyCSP [DG] - UC1 - GET - UC5 - GET - UC12 - GET
✅ SupplyCSP [REEFER] - UC1 - GET - UC2 - GET - UC3 - GET - UC5 - GET - UC12 - GET
✅ SupplyCSP [REEFER] - UC1 - GET - UC5 - GET - UC12 - GET
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am saying "The code is unreadable" and your answer "Flavia wanted the change". I am 100% certain Flavia did not ask you do write it in the most unreadable way you could, so I feel you are just not answering my review comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I misunderstood ur statement. I got it what you mean, probably I will rearrange the condition.
No description provided.