Thanks for taking the effort of forward porting (and improving) this old fix for 6.1 to 7.0! I sure hope this important fix lands in upstream one day.
l.66 seems wrong. I think in 7.0 you need to append it to the invoice line's name field like the original code does in l.42.
l.8..12 seems cosmetic, can it be restored in that case?
Such a large code change would warrant adding a test with pricelist (and one without if it does not yet exist).
« Back to merge proposal
Thanks for taking the effort of forward porting (and improving) this old fix for 6.1 to 7.0! I sure hope this important fix lands in upstream one day.
l.66 seems wrong. I think in 7.0 you need to append it to the invoice line's name field like the original code does in l.42.
l.8..12 seems cosmetic, can it be restored in that case?
Such a large code change would warrant adding a test with pricelist (and one without if it does not yet exist).