Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CET-468/feat: Updated logic for displaying order intent response #50

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SalmanTwo
Copy link
Contributor

Updated Logic for order intent response

@SalmanTwo SalmanTwo requested a review from brtkwr October 9, 2024 10:54
@SalmanTwo SalmanTwo requested a review from a team as a code owner October 9, 2024 10:54
@@ -380,6 +373,18 @@ define([
contentType: 'application/json',
headers: {},
data: JSON.stringify(orderIntentRequestBody)
})
.done((response) => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indentation looks off

@brtkwr
Copy link
Member

brtkwr commented Oct 10, 2024

With this PR, lets create some screenshots and check with the product/design team if the proposed behaviour is desirable.

.done((response) => {
this.orderIntentResponse(response);
if (response.approved) {
this.orderIntentMessage(config.orderIntentApprovedMessage);
Copy link
Member

@brtkwr brtkwr Oct 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where are we displaying the orderIntentMessage?

self.processOrderIntentSuccessResponse(response);
})
.fail(function (response) {
self.processOrderIntentErrorResponse(response);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this mean we can remove processOrderIntentErrorResponse function?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants