A pretty simple event registration that allows multiple registrants fails on the final submission and returns this error:
Stripe This PaymentIntent's amount could not be updated because it has a status of requires_capture. You may only update the amount of a PaymentIntent with one of the following statuses: requires_payment_method, requires_confirmation, requires_action.
NOTE: In Test/preview mode.
The same form works with PayPal. A very similar registration form for a different event (single registration only) works as expected. Its frustrating that the general form architecture here requires pre-approval of the payment, but so it is.
I can use a SQL Table source to connect the Contact source to the civicrm_uf_match table (they are of course in the same database). I cannot connect the civicrm_uf_match to the drupal users tables in a different database.
I entered the table name as d9.users_field_data (entering without the leading database name doesn't change the outcome). The database user has access to both civi and drupal databases (of course). When I then try to complete "Join on Field" there are no fields available (on the d9.users_field_data side ... the other side has the full field list for the other data sources). The drupal log records this as a civicrm Error with message "Table d9.users_field_data does not exist!"
I looked through the DataSpecification.php code ... I don't see anything about database definition or selection (but ... I'm pretty blind when reading these files).
so .. is there a way to access other databases? Will this resolve if I just place all the civicrm tables in the same database as drupal?
@kainuk THANKS! doh! I hadn't found the "(using two fields)" option! This makes a LOT more sense now.
So Hello World ... to use this feature be sure to choose the "Select Field" option as "Custom Link (using two fields)" and then its use is self-explanatory!
This is fantastic and exactly fits my need... but how is it actually implemented? My attempts to use "%2" aren't working on v1.42
I'll append my comments here! @totten gives a thorough presentation of a cautious position.
Let's be clear - I'm so marginal (in the sense of contribution) in this community that I barely exist. But the rms-open-letter strikes me as wrong and I wouldn't support THAT version.
First, heterodoxy is important. There is an element of cancel-culture/purity/emotional tribalism/ mob rule/Orwellian NewSpeak/House Committee on Un-American Activities in these demands that is completely counter to ideals of free thought.
Second, I'm not familiar with the history but it seems like a reaction to something a person has said. And if you live a semi-public life, you are going to say LOTS of things and those semi-aside things should not necessarily be taken as an advocacy position. I think of this as statistical sampling, and thus I find that letter to be non-persuasive. Sure those things are repulsive but I'm thinking "evidence" here and proving a position.
Finally - and this is personal - I don't buy the argument of "mis-gendering"= transphobia and I can't support such statements.
And I shall now continue to live in ultra-liberal Portland, OR and take my trans identifying child to the orthodontist (really).