I'm still seeing this fail on 3.1 in the webclient except that no error message now. I went down a bit of a rabbit hole thinking of different scenarios in untangling users. So, I'm not putting a pull request on this:
As I'm not sure it's the approach we want. It does favor simplicity though as it assumes that if the patron is being merged out and deleted any other non-deleted patron could be the new target of address could now be the FK of actor.usr_address.usr. I think it's an improvement over the current behavior but will leave it to the community to discuss further.
I'm still seeing this fail on 3.1 in the webclient except that no error message now. I went down a bit of a rabbit hole thinking of different scenarios in untangling users. So, I'm not putting a pull request on this:
user/rogan/ lp965374_ usr_merge_ fails_on_ shared_ address
As I'm not sure it's the approach we want. It does favor simplicity though as it assumes that if the patron is being merged out and deleted any other non-deleted patron could be the new target of address could now be the FK of actor.usr_ address. usr. I think it's an improvement over the current behavior but will leave it to the community to discuss further.