-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
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
[Feature] Implementing "Bulk Updates" Actions For Expenses && Recurring Invoices #2127
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[Feature] Implementing "Bulk Updates" Actions For Expenses && Recurring Invoices #2127
Conversation
@Civolilah could you use translations tax1,tax2,tax3 for the labels please? |
@turbo124 Okay, so the solution has been adjusted using the old data. Now, as I can see in the Let me know your thoughts. |
instead of newValue, can you please pass snake case new_value |
@turbo124 Ah okay, so this was my mistake. Right now it's updated to be "new_value" instead of "newValue", as it was for the clients endpoint already. It looks like it's working great on my end. Let me know your thoughts. |
src/common/queries/expenses.ts
Outdated
export function useBulk() { | ||
const queryClient = useQueryClient(); | ||
const invalidateQueryValue = useAtomValue(invalidationQueryAtom); | ||
|
||
return ( | ||
return async ( |
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.
Am I missing something or is there a reason these fns are marked as async?
No awaits inside?
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.
@beganovich Actually, I made this function async because TypeScript notified me that it could be made async (since we return a Promise from the 'request' function). However, I've just removed the async keyword and it works as expected. Screenshot:
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.
Looks good, tiny info needed.
@beganovich @turbo124 Dave, could this PR please go through one more QA iteration? When we merged the PR related to tax selector value uniqueness (name + rate), it wasn't updated here, which caused an issue. I've fixed it now, and it should work as expected. |
@beganovich @turbo124 The PR includes the implementation of the "bulk_updates" bulk action for
Expenses
andRecurring Invoices
. The only available field is the tax selector for tax columns. Screenshot:Note
: @turbo124 Before testing, please make sure that thebulk_updates
property in thestatics
query is correctly updated for those two entities.Currently, I have implemented a solution calling those columns "tax_1", "tax_2", and "tax_3".
Let me know your thoughts.