Conversation
What was broken Billing account detail rows for repeated engagement assignment payments could display member payment and challenge fee values derived from the current billing account markup instead of the actual finance payment split. Root cause The modal fetched finance payments by assignment id, but when several payments shared the same assignment and amount, the split matcher could not identify the specific finance row for the consumed billing row. It then fell back to markup-derived math, which drifted from persisted payment amounts when markup changed or finance did not expose a fee. What was changed Added day-level finance payment date matching before the existing exact amount and aggregate fallbacks. When a single finance payment date matches the billing ledger row, the modal uses that payment amount and infers the challenge fee from the ledger total if needed. Any added/updated tests Added a BillingAccountLineItemsModal regression test that covers repeated engagement payments for the same assignment and verifies the modal shows the actual finance payment amount and inferred fee instead of the markup-derived fallback.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What was broken
Billing account detail rows for repeated engagement assignment payments could display member payment and challenge fee values derived from the current billing account markup instead of the actual finance payment split.
Root cause
The modal fetched finance payments by assignment id, but when several payments shared the same assignment and amount, the split matcher could not identify the specific finance row for the consumed billing row. It then fell back to markup-derived math, which drifted from persisted payment amounts when markup changed or finance did not expose a fee.
What was changed
Added day-level finance payment date matching before the existing exact amount and aggregate fallbacks. When a single finance payment date matches the billing ledger row, the modal uses that payment amount and infers the challenge fee from the ledger total if needed.
Any added/updated tests
Added a BillingAccountLineItemsModal regression test for repeated payments on the same engagement assignment. The focused spec passes and verifies the modal shows the actual finance payment amount and inferred fee instead of the markup-derived fallback.
Validation run: