Fix the format of xml for read requests

[bezoar17]

Contributor Self-Check:

• My commits and messages are solid
• I have included tests that check success and failure
• I have updated the README as appropriate

Which GitHub Issues does this PR address?

#15

What does this PR do?

Fix the format of XML query for read API calls.
When, the PR #9 was ported to PR #13, a few lines were missed due to which this issue persisted. This should fix that too.

How do I manually test this?

Steps to reproduce are mentioned in the issue itself.

Additional Comments

No need to update README.md as those were updated with PR#9 itself.

GIF for how this PR makes me feel

[bezoar17]

@danielpowell4 Hey, while porting PR 9 to 13, you missed some lines. Restored them.

[danielrose7]

@bezoar17 Sorry about this oversight on my part. I saw these changes but I didn't realize the need when I ran it against our integration as we only are using the gem for CU_TYPES currently

I think this is fine for a quick patch that I can put out quickly

---

It seems to me that since the gem now only supports ruby 2+ there is likely a way to clean up the gem's API with keyword arguments such that passing in "nil" as the second argument for read calls becomes unnecessary

To me, this looks better:

request = IntacctRuby::Request.new(REQUEST_OPTS)

request.readByQuery parameters: {
  object: 'GLENTRY',
  query: "BATCH_DATE >= '03-01-2018' AND BATCH_DATE <= '03-15-2018'",
  fields: '*',
  pagesize: 100
}

request.send

This would make create calls the look like:

request = IntacctRuby::Request.new(REQUEST_OPTS)

request.create object_type: :CUSTOMER, parameters: {
  CUSTOMERID: '1',
  FIRST_NAME: 'Han',
  LAST_NAME: 'Solo',
  TYPE: 'Person',
  EMAIL1: 'han@solo.com',
  STATUS: 'active'
}

request.create object_type: :PROJECT, parameters: {
  PROJECTID: '1',
  NAME: 'Get Chewie a Haircut',
  PROJECTCATEGORY: 'Improve Wookie Hygene',
  CUSTOMERID: '1',
  SHAMPOO: 'true', # a custom field
  BLOWDRY: 'false' # a custom field
}

request.send

This change would happen here https://github.com/privateprep/intacct-ruby/blob/master/lib/intacct_ruby/function.rb#L18

def initialize(function_type, object_type:, parameters: {})

What do you think? Let me know when possible.
Will hold off with merging until I hear back.

[bezoar17]

Using keyword arguments throughout the gem is the more elegant and better solution. I agree to this. But I think that this should go as a separate PR.
Because, this is a bug I think this quick patch should go through.
I will be happy to pick up introducing keyword arguments next.
Let me know if this works

[danielrose7]

Agree with you about best strategy,

Certainly open to your help with keywords! If you want to break it up, also happy to collaborate

[danielrose7]

@bezoar17 1.8.2 has your changes! Thanks for the PR