typo ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require vs ui.patron.edit.au.state.require

[Jason Etheridge]

This is in the following upgrade scripts:
0799.state_field_required_toggle.sql
2.4.3-2.5.0-upgrade-db.sql

Those two scripts reference: ui.patron.edit.au.state.require

Seed data and Javascript reference: ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require

The other settings being added in those upgrade scripts are similarly incorrect.

$ ack-grep ui.patron.edit.au.state.require
Open-ILS/src/sql/Pg/upgrade/0799.state_field_required_toggle.sql
12: 'ui.patron.edit.au.state.require',
15: 'ui.patron.edit.au.state.require',
21: 'ui.patron.edit.au.state.require',

Open-ILS/src/sql/Pg/version-upgrade/2.4.3-2.5.0-upgrade-db.sql
1440: 'ui.patron.edit.au.state.require',
1443: 'ui.patron.edit.au.state.require',
1449: 'ui.patron.edit.au.state.require',

$ ack-grep ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require
Open-ILS/web/js/ui/default/actor/user/register.js
195: 'ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require',

Open-ILS/src/sql/Pg/t/0799.state_field_required_toggle.pg
31: 'SELECT * FROM config.org_unit_setting_type WHERE name = $$ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require$$',
32: 'ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require exists'

Open-ILS/src/sql/Pg/950.data.seed-values.sql
4731:,( 'ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require', 'gui',
4732: oils_i18n_gettext('ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require',
4735: oils_i18n_gettext('ui.patron.edit.aua.state.require',

[Ben Shum (bshum)]

Doing a little digging, I narrowed this to bug 1204273 where we fixed the seed data and introduced a new upgrade script (eventually known as 0813.data.state-field-settings-fix.sql)

Commits in master:

http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=commit;h=d2ef1684cc4b71bc7714edb7a5dfdac19739fabc
http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=commit;h=72e2f9378361f990636e025d96b43e80a7967f50

I believe at the time that we skipped fixing the 0799 because it was already in place and subsequent master scripts would overwrite it.

Looking at the 2.4.3-2.5.0 upgrade script, 0813 is applied and changes the au to aua appropriately.

Marking this bug invalid because it seems to be resolved.

[Jason Etheridge (phasefx)]

Thanks Ben. I think it was a unique set of error conditions with a system I upgraded that put me on this path. I didn't see the corrections made later.