Continuation of !120 (merged) that was weirdly merged, later reverted. this MR is still lacking documentation and explanation, esp. regarding the pending list. See #108 (closed).
After a closer look, this was actually the second half of the fix for #113 (closed). We postpone the merging of entities in case of unresolved reference properties.
Focus
The problem that is being solved is best described in the new integration test originally from !141 (merged). It describes the case of three records, an event, a basis, and a campaign. Both, event and campaign reference the basis, and event references campaign. Campaign and basis already exist on the server.
This is solved by postponing the merge, and by the new merge_id_with_resolved_entity argument of merge_entities.
Test Environment
New integration test should be sufficient.
Check List for the Author
Please, prepare your MR for a review. Be sure to write a summary and a focus and create gitlab
comments for the reviewer. They should guide the reviewer through the changes, explain your changes
and also point out open questions. For further good practices have a look at our review
guidelines
All automated tests pass
Reference related issues
Up-to-date CHANGELOG.md (or not necessary)
Up-to-date JSON schema (or not necessary)
Appropriate user and developer documentation (or not necessary)
How do I use the software? Assume "stupid" users.
How do I develop or debug the software? Assume novice developers.
Annotations in code (Gitlab comments)
Intent of new code
Problems with old code
Why this implementation?
Check List for the Reviewer
I understand the intent of this MR
All automated tests pass
Up-to-date CHANGELOG.md (or not necessary)
Appropriate user and developer documentation (or not necessary)
The test environment setup works and the intended behavior is reproducible in the test
environment
In-code documentation and comments are up-to-date.
Check: Are there specifications? Are they satisfied?
