* feat(index): Add support to trigger sync manually
* feat(index): Add API route to interact with
* feat(index): Add API route to interact with
* feat(index): Add API route to interact with
* test(): Add http integration tests
* Create weak-elephants-reply.md
## Summary
**What** — What changes are introduced in this PR?
This PR is part of a series of PRs to fix HTTP and request type arguments.
This is the last PR in the series. It includes a changeset for the changes made.
**Why** — Why are these changes relevant or necessary?
These types impact the outputted OAS which we show on the API reference. By fixing up the types, we ensure accurate request parameters in the API reference.
**How** — How have these changes been implemented?
Made changes to HTTP types and request type arguments
**Testing** — How have these changes been tested, or how can the reviewer test the feature?
-
---
## Examples
-
---
## Checklist
Please ensure the following before requesting a review:
- [ ] I have added a **changeset** for this PR
- Every non-breaking change should be marked as a **patch**
- To add a changeset, run `yarn changeset` and follow the prompts
- [ ] The changes are covered by relevant **tests**
- [ ] I have verified the code works as intended locally
- [ ] I have linked the related issue(s) if applicable
---
## Additional Context
-
## Summary
**What** — What changes are introduced in this PR?
This PR fixes a bug where async workflow steps with retry intervals would get stuck after the first retry attempt due to Bull queue jobId collisions preventing retry jobs from executing.
**Why** — Why are these changes relevant or necessary?
Workflows using async steps with retry configurations (e.g., `retryInterval: 1`, `maxRetries: 5`) would fail once, schedule a retry, but the retry job would never execute, causing workflows to hang indefinitely.
**How** — How have these changes been implemented?
**Root Cause:** Bull queue was rejecting retry jobs because they had identical jobIds to the async execution jobs that already completed. Both used the format: `retry:workflow:transaction:step_id:attempts`.
**Solution:** Modified `getJobId()` in `workflow-orchestrator-storage.ts` to append a `:retry` suffix when `interval > 0`, creating unique jobIds:
- Async execution (interval=0): `retry:...:step_id:1`
- Retry scheduling (interval>0): `retry:...:step_id:1:retry`
Updated methods: `getJobId()`, `scheduleRetry()`, `removeJob()`, and `clearRetry()` to pass and handle the interval parameter.
**Testing** — How have these changes been tested, or how can the reviewer test the feature?
Added integration test `retry-interval.spec.ts` that verifies:
1. Step with `retryInterval: 1` and `maxRetries: 3` executes 3 times
2. Retry intervals are approximately 1 second between attempts
3. Workflow completes successfully after retries
4. Uses proper async workflow completion pattern with `subscribe()` and `onFinish` event
---
## Examples
```ts
// Example workflow step that would previously get stuck
export const testRetryStep = createStep(
{
name: "test-retry-step",
async: true,
retryInterval: 1, // 1 second retry interval
maxRetries: 3,
},
async (input: any) => {
// Simulate failure on first 2 attempts
if (attempts < 3) {
throw new Error("Temporary failure - will retry")
}
return { success: true }
}
)
// Before fix: Step would fail once, schedule retry, but retry job never fired (jobId collision)
// After fix: Step properly retries up to 3 times with 1-second intervals
```
---
## Checklist
Please ensure the following before requesting a review:
- [ ] I have added a **changeset** for this PR
- Every non-breaking change should be marked as a **patch**
- To add a changeset, run `yarn changeset` and follow the prompts
- [ ] The changes are covered by relevant **tests**
- [ ] I have verified the code works as intended locally
- [ ] I have linked the related issue(s) if applicable
---
## Additional Context
-
Co-authored-by: Carlos R. L. Rodrigues <37986729+carlos-r-l-rodrigues@users.noreply.github.com>
## Summary
**What** — What changes are introduced in this PR?
Add a method in the Tax Module's servie to retrieve a provider by its ID.
**Why** — Why are these changes relevant or necessary?
The Tax Module Provider could be used for use cases other than calculating tax lines. For example, Avalara supports importing products to manage product-specific taxes. However, it's not possible right now to listen to the `product.created` event and create the product in Avalara with its provider. Instead, you'll have to create a separate module that also connects to Avalara and resolve it in the subsriber.
This also matches the pattern in the Analytics Module, which allows retrieving the underlying provider.
**How** — How have these changes been implemented?
Add a `getProvider` method to the Tax Module's service and its interface.
**Testing** — How have these changes been tested, or how can the reviewer test the feature?
Added integration test for the method.
---
## Examples
Provide examples or code snippets that demonstrate how this feature works, or how it can be used in practice.
This helps with documentation and ensures maintainers can quickly understand and verify the change.
```ts
const avalaraProvider = taxModuleService.getProvider("tp_avalara_avalara")
```
---
## Checklist
Please ensure the following before requesting a review:
- [x] I have added a **changeset** for this PR
- Every non-breaking change should be marked as a **patch**
- To add a changeset, run `yarn changeset` and follow the prompts
- [x] The changes are covered by relevant **tests**
- [x] I have verified the code works as intended locally
- [ ] I have linked the related issue(s) if applicable
---
## Additional Context
Add any additional context, related issues, or references that might help the reviewer understand this PR.
### What
Add a new `once` allocation strategy to promotions that limits application to a maximum number of items across the entire cart, rather than per line item.
### Why
Merchants want to create promotions that apply to a limited number of items across the entire cart. For example:
- "Get $10 off, applied to one item only"
- "20% off up to 2 items in your cart"
Current allocation strategies:
- `each`: Applies to each line item independently (respects `max_quantity` per item)
- `across`: Distributes proportionally across all items
Neither supports limiting total applications across the entire cart.
### How
Add `once` to the `ApplicationMethodAllocation` enum.
Behavior:
- Applies promotion to maximum `max_quantity` items across entire cart
- Always prioritizes lowest-priced eligible items first
- Distributes sequentially across items until quota exhausted
- Requires `max_quantity` field to be set
### Example Usage
**Scenario 1: Fixed discount**
```javascript
{
type: "fixed",
allocation: "once",
value: 10, // $10 off
max_quantity: 2 // Apply to 2 items max across cart
}
Cart:
- Item A: 3 units @ $100/unit
- Item B: 5 units @ $50/unit (lowest price)
Result: $20 discount on Item B (2 units × $10)
```
**Scenario 2: Distribution across items**
```javascript
{
type: "fixed",
allocation: "once",
value: 5,
max_quantity: 4
}
Cart:
- Item A: 2 units @ $50/unit
- Item B: 3 units @ $60/unit
Result:
- Item A: $10 discount (2 units × $5)
- Item B: $10 discount (2 units × $5, remaining quota)
```
**Scenario 3: Percentage discount - single item**
```javascript
{
type: "percentage",
allocation: "once",
value: 20, // 20% off
max_quantity: 3 // Apply to 3 items max
}
Cart:
- Item A: 5 units @ $100/unit
- Item B: 4 units @ $50/unit (lowest price)
Result: $30 discount on Item B (3 units × $50 × 20% = $30)
```
**Scenario 4: Percentage discount - distributed across items**
```javascript
{
type: "percentage",
allocation: "once",
value: 15, // 15% off
max_quantity: 5
}
Cart:
- Item A: 2 units @ $40/unit (lowest price)
- Item B: 4 units @ $80/unit
Result:
- Item A: $12 discount (2 units × $40 × 15% = $12)
- Item B: $36 discount (3 units × $80 × 15% = $36, remaining quota)
Total: $48 discount
```
**Scenario 5: Percentage with max_quantity = 1**
```javascript
{
type: "percentage",
allocation: "once",
value: 25, // 25% off
max_quantity: 1 // Only one item
}
Cart:
- Item A: 3 units @ $60/unit
- Item B: 2 units @ $30/unit (lowest price)
Result: $7.50 discount on Item B (1 unit × $30 × 25%)
```
* wip
* chore: prepare for PR
* move to end
* Change order of operations in refundPaymentWorkflow
Updated the order of operations in the refundPaymentWorkflow.
* chore: Add validation
When starting the Medusa application i see the following in the console:
```
update-order-tax-lines: "when" name should be defined. A random one will be assigned to it, which is not recommended for production.
({ input }) => {
return input.item_ids?.length > 0;
}
update-order-tax-lines: "when" name should be defined. A random one will be assigned to it, which is not recommended for production.
({ input }) => {
return input.shipping_method_ids?.length > 0;
}
```
This PR fixes the issue by passing a step name as a first parameter to the `when` usages in `updateOrderTaxLinesWorkflow`
**What**
- implement promotion usage limits per customer/email
- fix registering spend usage over the limit
- fix type errors in promotion module tests
**How**
- introduce a new type of campaign budget that can be defined by an attribute such as customer id or email
- add `CampaignBudgetUsage` entity to keep track of the number of uses per attribute value
- update `registerUsage` and `computeActions` in the promotion module to work with the new type
- update `core-flows` to pass context needed for usage calculation to the promotion module
**Breaking**
- registering promotion usage now throws (and cart complete fails) if the budget limit is exceeded or if the cart completion would result in a breached limit
---
CLOSES CORE-1172
CLOSES CORE-1173
CLOSES CORE-1174
CLOSES CORE-1175
Co-authored-by: Adrien de Peretti <25098370+adrien2p@users.noreply.github.com>
I added a lock in all workflows of the draft order. I don't think there are drawbacks and it will make sure we don't run into concurrency issues in with draft orders. I don't see why we would not add this in the order workflows, let me know and I can add it too.
I also didn't see any workflow that is long enough to justify adding a timeout of more than 2 seconds, but let me know if you think otherwise, we can discuss adjustments :)
CLOSES-1228
**What**
After lot of investigation, we finally found one of our performance regerssion point (see [here](https://github.com/mikro-orm/mikro-orm/issues/6905)), this pr downgrade mikro orm and move the strategy back to select in where needed
**What**
It seems that for some reason the weak map fail in some scenario, but after investigation, the usage of map would not have a bad impact as it will be released after the Distributed transaction if finished. Therefore, falling back to Map instead
FIXES https://github.com/medusajs/medusa/issues/13654
NOTE: Waiting for the user feedback as he is also using node 18. We also use the exact same pattern in all our core flows without issues 🤔
