@ruzeynalov please squash 2 commits; other than that LGTM

@ruzeynalov please squash 2 commits; other than that LGTM

Community was decided to go with "merge commits" route and allowing multiple commits / PR (if they are not repetitive like fix trailing spaces, etc.)

ah, ok... well then

@adamsaghy btw: before when I merged a similar one I saw that my user was kind of hijacking the authorship of the PR... how can this be avoided?

@adamsaghy btw: before when I merged a similar one I saw that my user was kind of hijacking the authorship of the PR... how can this be avoided?

Can you link the PR?

@adamsaghy btw: before when I merged a similar one I saw that my user was kind of hijacking the authorship of the PR... how can this be avoided?

Can you link the PR?

PR: #5662

commit: 2e71832

@adamsaghy btw: before when I merged a similar one I saw that my user was kind of hijacking the authorship of the PR... how can this be avoided?

Can you link the PR?

PR: #5662

commit: 2e71832

Assuming this is the wanted behaviour, since you are the author of the merge commit. Anyway the original commit still authored by Peter, but now there are multiple commits.

@meonkeys right?

@meonkeys also: should I just leave then the default messages that is provided to me (was something like "Merge: FINERACT-1234 blablabla", but also repeated the commit/PR titles in the extended description)... looks a bit weird and unnecessary given the already existing commit(s) with description(s). Any recommendations/preferences?

@adamsaghy wrote:

Assuming this is the wanted behaviour, since you are the author of the merge commit. Anyway the original commit still authored by Peter, but now there are multiple commits.

@meonkeys right?

That's right.

@vidakovic wrote:

@meonkeys also: should I just leave then the default messages that is provided to me (was something like "Merge: FINERACT-1234 blablabla", but also repeated the commit/PR titles in the extended description)... looks a bit weird and unnecessary given the already existing commit(s) with description(s). Any recommendations/preferences?

Aleks, I like what you did for the first line of the log in merge commit 2e71832, and I'd also leave the rest of the autogenerated commit log message below that (in "Extended description").

Hi, I was reviewing this PR and noticed that updating the approved amount with the same value still triggers history creation and business events.

I’ve created a small follow-up improvement to prevent no-op updates by adding validation when the new approved amount equals the current value. Also added integration test coverage for this scenario.

PR: #5696 (follow-up improvement)

Please let me know if this aligns with the intended behavior.

Hi, I was reviewing this PR and noticed that updating the approved amount with the same value still triggers history creation and business events.

I’ve created a small follow-up improvement to prevent no-op updates by adding validation when the new approved amount equals the current value. Also added integration test coverage for this scenario.

PR: #5696 (follow-up improvement)

Please let me know if this aligns with the intended behavior.

Just a quick update: based on the feedback, I’ve created a separate JIRA issue for this improvement (FINERACT-2556) and updated the PR accordingly.

PR: #5696

Thanks again for the guidance!