Update biling and shipping address indexes.

[vedanshujain]

All Submissions:

• Have you followed the WooCommerce Contributing guideline?
• Does your code follow the WordPress' coding standards?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?

Changes proposed in this Pull Request:

Looks like we were not saving _billing_address_index and _shipping_address_index metadata on update (we were doing it on create, though). This PR addresses the issue by updating the index metadata on updates as well.

Closes #34989 .

How to test the changes in this Pull Request:

1. With COT enabled and sync off, create an order with no address field set. Update the status to anything other than draft.
2. Update the address now to some value, and search for it in the admin list screen. Without this PR you won't see the order listed. Checkout this PR and update the order again with another address, you will now be able to search for it.

Note that after #35150 , these meta fields won't be needed anymore.

Other information:

• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
• Have you written new tests for your changes, as applicable?
• Have you successfully run tests with your changes locally?
• Have you created a changelog file for each project being changed, ie pnpm --filter=<project> run changelog add?

FOR PR REVIEWER ONLY:

• I have reviewed that everything is sanitized/escaped appropriately for any SQL or XSS injection possibilities. I made sure Linting is not ignored or disabled.

[github-actions]

Test Results Summary

Commit SHA: 99436b3

Test 🧪	Passed ✅	Failed 🚨	Broken 🚧	Skipped ⏭️	Unknown ❔	Total 📊	Duration ⏱️
API Tests	188	0	0	2	0	190	0m 57s
E2E Tests	186	0	0	3	0	189	18m 13s

---

To view the full API test report, click here.
To view the full E2E test report, click here.
To view all test reports, visit the WooCommerce Test Reports Dashboard.

[barryhughes]

Looks good 👍

---

I did notice a problem while testing—however it is not the result of your change, it was an oversight in the original PR that added this system to HPOS, so let me know if you prefer we follow-up via a separate issue/PR.

What I observed was that instead of updating the _<TYPE>_address_index fields (or creating that entry if it does not already exist), what we actually seem to be doing is add a new meta record each time.

You can see this if you repeat point 2 in your testing instructions a few times. In the database, we end up with something like:

id	order_id	meta_key	meta_value
12345	100	_billing_address_index	123 My Street, London
12346	100	_billing_address_index	123 My Street, Birmingham
12347	100	_billing_address_index	345 Some Avenue, Glasgow

Apart from the fact this is adding unnecessary rows, it arguably reduces the accuracy of search (using the above example, I can still surface order 100 by searching for London, even though that has since been corrected to Glasgow).

The problem, I believe, is that calls to WC_Data::update_meta_data() always add unless the existing meta ID is also specified, which we aren't currently doing.

---

Hope the above makes sense. We can go ahead and merge (and one of us can fix the above separately), or we can address here if that's expedient.

[vedanshujain]

I see, I am going to merge this, and open another issue to track preventing duplicates on updates.

[github-actions]

Hi @vedanshujain, thanks for merging this pull request. Please take a look at these follow-up tasks you may need to perform:

• Add the release: add testing instructions label

[vedanshujain]

I see, I am going to merge this, and open another issue to track preventing duplicates on updates.

Follow up PR (WIP) #35192