No description provided.
fix failing spec
This should fix this failing spec:
yes, this scenario uses a test bank account number that should transition transactions to pending. Fixes #668
was this wrong to begin with/is this using a bank account number that should have a status of pending or is this one suppose to be succeeded
@cieplak You can't fix a scenario by changing the scenario. This scenario used to pass. There was a regression.
@matin if you look at the link I provided above, the scenario uses a bank account that's supposed to transition all txns created with it to the PENDING state.
Since I've been away I guess that what may have happened is that someone fixed the bug with test bank account numbers not transitioning correctly and this is what caused the scenario (which was incorrectly written but passed because of a bug) to fail.
If the scenario needs the bank account's transaction to be in the SUCCEEDED state then the fixture should use a different bank account number.
Does that mean there was a bug in the scenario before?
The way it was written depended on broken behavior. If you view that as a bug then yes :)
Makes sense. It looks like the scenario was purely written to match the existing behavior of the API: e866535