►
A
A
B
B
B
Maybe
it's
it's
related
to
some
period
when
we
had
broken
some
index
or
we
did
not
support
some
type
of
price.
That's
why
we
need
to
recalculate
this
price.
But
if
I
don't
mistake
at
this
moment,
we
don't
have
some
significant
buck
with
indexation
and
we
should
support
data
from
index
without
recalculating.
A
B
As
I
said
early,
we
had
some
kind
like
some
additional
adjustments
like
catalog
rules.
Maybe
that's
why
we
need
to
to
recalculate
each
time,
but
at
this
moment
we
should
support
all
of
type
of
index.
So
for
me
it's
bug
at
least
need
to
try
to
change
this
behavior
and
look
on
test
because
it's
sensible
to
take
data
from
index,
especially
if
it's
loaded
so
during
institution
it's
it
will
be
great
to
load
some
some
products
and
compare
data
from
collection
with
data
after
recalculation.
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
It's
very
strange:
maybe
we
did
not
have
use
cases
in
magenta
for
that.
Moreover,
we
often
don't
recommend
to
use
for
in
case
to
avoiding
some
cohesion
between
separate
models.
But
if
you
talk
about,
if
you
consider
this
like
separate
library
which
work
with
db
so
yes
looks
like
it's
very
strange,
this
method,
yes,.
A
It's
smaller,
we
should
consider
it
like
a
client,
a
library
for
database
like
adapter,
so
in
this
case
we
should
support
all
features
and
functions
that
are
supported
database.
In
this
case,
we
should
support
this
case
also
in
the
same
way
so
yeah,
it
looks
like
a
bug
what
priority
and
severity
for
this
you
think.
A
A
The
exception
has
been
for
ascii
api,
so
yeah.
We
try
to
pass
some
data
that
are
not
declared
in
our
interface
like
tests
and
if
we
pass
data
like
this,
we
will
receive
with
a
message
that
we
don't
have
accessor
method
get
test,
because
we
really
don't
have
it
yeah
so
proposal
contributor
proposal
just
lock
this
parameters
that
are
not
supported,
but
don't
throw
the
arrow
error.
B
B
A
B
Consent
at
this
moment,
even
if
you
would
like
to
add
this
feature,
implementation
should
be
different.
We
should
not
introduce
some
interface,
which
related
only
to
rest
api
because
we
operate
our
interfaces
which
related
to
domain
model
like
api
data
code
interface,
it's
related
to
domain
model.
There
are
no
any.
It
should
be
agnostic
to
graphql
to
rest
to
some
controllers.
B
A
B
I
propose
to
move
this
move
this
issue
to
feature
request
and
when
we
will
work
when
we
on
this
track,
we
will
look
at
this
again.
We
will
provide
separate
priority.
It's
absolutely
not
bad.
Moreover,
it's
its
current
behavior
state,
but
if
you
would
like
to
change
it,
we
need
to
involve
product
owner.
Maybe
we
need
to
support
from
architect
sites.
So,
yes
looks
like
the
best
way
it's
moving.
A
A
A
B
A
Look
and
internal
tickets.
It
depends
in
general
to
architectural
decision,
because
I
know
a
lot
of
cases
when,
when
we
decided,
when
architect
do
a
track
protection
reason,
we
decided
to
not
load
all
attributes
in
different
collections,
so
we
decided
just
to
google's
data
and
it's
also
can
be
architectural
decision.
It's
pretty
key,
even
for
sdpi.
A
A
B
B
B
You
see
that
likes
is
increased
by
minutes.
It
was
eight
likes
a
couple
hours
ago.
So
I
already
look
at
this
issue
and
I
really
like
this
proposal
so
many
ideas
that
you
should
not
load
all
of
commands
with
all
of
dependency
for
each
request.
You
need
to
load
just
that
you
need
in
general,
it's
no
issues,
but
we
never
make
some
investigation
in
this
area
not
make
some
proposal
how
to
avoiding
this.
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
P2
because
it's
not
a
blocker,
it's
a
good,
a
really
good
feature,
but
it's
efficient.
It's
not
a
blocker
for
anyone.
So
but
it's
really
important
for
us
and
we
think
that
it's
really
good
issue
and
we
really
want
to
see
it
in
our
nearest
releases
in
the
in
magento
code.
So
I
prefer
severity
one
for
that,
but
priority
two,
because
it's
a
feature.