Skip to content

Conversation

@candemiralp
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR fixes the issue related to L2/L3 ESD request builder. Initial implementation contains an if-block to check the tax amount and skip ESD building process if the total tax is zero.

This assumption is correct for L2 ESD but L3 still can be submitted with the zero tax amount. In this solution, the above mentioned condition has been removed to build ESD even if the tax amount is zero.

Tested scenarios

  • Building enhanced scheme data w/wo tax amount

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello @candemiralp, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves an issue in the L2/L3 Enhanced Scheme Data (ESD) builder where an overly restrictive tax amount condition incorrectly halted the ESD generation process. The previous implementation, while appropriate for L2 ESD, prevented L3 ESD from being built for transactions with zero tax. By removing this condition, the system can now consistently generate ESD for all valid scenarios, enhancing the flexibility and accuracy of L3 ESD submissions.

Highlights

  • L2/L3 Enhanced Scheme Data Builder Logic: Removed a conditional check that previously prevented the generation of L2/L3 Enhanced Scheme Data (ESD) if the order's tax amount was zero, negative, or empty. This change ensures that ESD is built regardless of the tax amount, which is crucial for L3 ESD submissions.
  • Unit Test Updates: Deleted the taxAmountDataProvider and testLevel23DataInvalidTaxAmounts unit test from AdditionalDataLevel23DataBuilderTest.php, as the logic they were designed to test (skipping ESD generation for invalid tax amounts) has been removed.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request correctly removes the condition that prevented L2/L3 Enhanced Scheme Data from being built when the tax amount is zero. This aligns with the requirements for L3 data. My review includes a high-severity comment about a potential issue with negative tax amounts, which are no longer validated, and a medium-severity suggestion to add a new unit test to cover the new zero-tax scenario to improve test coverage.

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

@candemiralp candemiralp merged commit 885fa9b into main Oct 24, 2025
14 of 15 checks passed
@candemiralp candemiralp deleted the ECP-9834 branch October 24, 2025 13:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Fix Indicates a bug fix

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants