►
Description
https://github.com/magento/magento2/issues/27139
https://github.com/magento/magento2/issues/27119
https://github.com/magento/magento2/issues/13573
https://github.com/magento/magento2/issues/25634
https://github.com/magento/magento2/issues/25619
https://github.com/magento/magento2/issues/29165
B
B
Here
about
incorrect
result
in
our
api,
when
we
create
the.
B
What's,
after
that,
we
add
some
items
to
quote
and
after
that
delete
the
items
quarterly
in
vr
api
we
still
will
receive
the
item.
Quantity
of
items
in
cart
like
two:
it
doesn't
matter
if
we
delete
it
or
not,
but
yeah
in
general
items
will
be
a
an
empty
array,
but
like
additional
information,
how
many
items
in
the
cart
we
still
see.
A
So,
yes,
it's
absolutely
clear
bug
only
one
mention
from
my
site.
During
fix
of
this
bug,
there
should
be
not
only
items,
quantity,
zero,
but
also
items
count,
because,
according
to
actual
result,
they
see
that
there
are
two
mistakes.
First,
it's
item.
Quantity
and
second,
since
item
count
so
as
it's
very
pretty
familiar
issue
and
could
be
fixed
in
one
place
about
priority
severity.
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
For
me,
we
have
a
lot
of
very
f
minor
things
in
our
court.
It's
mostly
related
to
some
legacy
code
and
lukas
is
corrected
in
a
dlps.
In
an
ideal
case.
All
of
helpers
should
be
completely
removed,
so
in
this
case
it's
like
kind
of
refactoring
only
on
one
helper
without
any
significant
business
value
in
some
tech
refactoring.
Moreover,
it's
related
to
only
one
class.
So
for
me
it's
p4
s4,
so
priority
for
severity
4..
So
in
generally,
if
you
are
going
to
make
this
work
first
of
all,
I
need
to
define
scope.
A
I
think
scope
should
be
more
bigger,
like
full
extracting
of
this
helper
or
maybe
a
whole
extractive
health
of
some
model
and
looks
like
we
can
do
it
without
backward
compatibility,
so
it
should
be
delivered
into
the
five
branch
in
some
price
which
will
be
related
for
2.45.
So,
yes,
it's
issue,
but
it's
not
big
priority.
It's.
A
B
Improve
our
code
base,
but
yeah
this
is
just
one.
While
we
have
enough
pretty
same
pretty
same
outdated
code
and
yeah,
it
should
be
more
complex
issue.
A
A
Yes,
I
think
issues
related
that
in
some
cases
when
we
use
some
example
from
our
sample
form,
it
leads
to
fatal
error.
So
in
generally
our
sample
models
is
outdated,
but
anyway
it's
bad.
If
you
can
provide
some
configuration
which
will
leads
to
fatal
error
from
our
site.
So
if
there
are
some
wrong
configuration,
there
should
be
no
exception.
Error
message,
maybe
something
else,
but
not.
B
Yeah,
I
fully
agree,
but
why
I
think
it's
is
that
this
form
is
just
a
configuration.
Did
you
look
to
the
internet?
Maybe
some
php
classes
is
currently
outdated
and
it's
lead
to
this
behaviors.
A
I
did
not
check
sample
model,
but
I
look
and
current
implementation
if
your
components-
and
yes,
there
are
possible
way,
if
you,
when
can
be
leads
to
photo
error,
it's
related
to
is
to
some
configuration.
So
for
me,
there
are
should
be
some,
like
exception,
like
there
are
missed
some
required
component
of
some
required
parts
of
concrete
configuration.
A
A
Because
it
it's
not
some
base
case,
yes,
we
have,
if
you
will
have,
if
you
have
some
bad
configuration,
it
will
be
lead
to
fatal
error,
but
you
can
change
this
configuration
and
it
will
work.
So
it's
not
related
to
some
base
mechanism
and
since
it's
not
related
to
some
logic
errors.
A
B
A
A
A
Let's
look,
oh
according
to
description,
this
issue
is
related
to
our
performance,
some
problems
with
performance
and
in
general
it
looks
like
when
I
run
all
of
kranto's
current
tasks.
It's
lead
to
it's
a
pool
loading,
so
he
said
it's
a
clear
understand
that
maybe
there
are.
We
have
some
problem
with
it,
but
it's
so
hard
to
reproduce,
because
it's
mostly
related
to
your
environment
and
I'm
not
sure
that
we
can
reproduce
it
on
local
machine
on
our
cloud.
A
Maybe
we
need
to
generate
a
lot
of
data
for
it,
but
we
can
make
some
proposal
some
some.
My
suggestions
that,
yes,
we
have
problem
with
it
and
I
reviewed
pr
and
architecture
of
performance
team
provides
some
clarification
that,
yes,
the
pro
the
fix
is
proper
and
to
make
sense
so
based
on
it,
we
can
say
that,
yes,
we
have
this
problem.
Its
problem
is
confirmed
and
for
me
all
of
issue
related
to
some
performance,
especially
to
some
big
area
like
cron
running,
it
should
be
at
least
p2
p2
severity,
2.
A
Plus
one
more
point
for
performance,
especially
for
big
area:
it's
it's
performance,
not
on
some
only
one
pointed
since
not
only
about
one
controller
or
about
one
model.
It's
about
full
chrome,
job
work.
So
for
me,
I'm
not
sure
that
it's
p1,
but
by
the
way,
how
many,
how
many
likes
we
have
on
this
issue.
A
As
I
said,
we
already
have
pr
for
this
ticket
and
this
pr
was
confirmed
by
architect
of
performance
team
and
unfortunately,
we
have
red
bills.
According
to
this
part,
but
looks
like
working
is
in
progress.
A
A
Main
issue
a
main
idea
of
this
issue,
then,
if
you
call
two
different
rest
api
point
like
you
can
found
product
via
one
entry
point:
it's
products,
products
and
you
put
search
criteria
and
try
to
found
products
and
second
entry
points.
It's
our
search.
So
in
first
way
we
try
to
load
products
via
products,
entry
point.
A
In
second
way
we
try
to
found
this
products
via
search
and
main
issue
like
and
the
main
problem
that
pagination
is
working
in
different
ways
for
first
and
the
second
points,
so
you
try
to
load
the
same
products
without
some
filtering,
but
it's
different
result.
If
you
provide
current
page
zero
and
current
page
one,
I
am
not
sure
what
is
proper.
We
have
some
agreement
about
current.
A
What
what
is
result
should
be
at
if
you
put
current
page
zero,
but
it's
clear
that
we
should
have
some
consistent
result.
That's
very
strange!
In
one
entry
point:
we
have
one
behavior
in
pagination,
but
we,
but
if
you
use
another
entry
point,
we
have
absolutely
different
result
of
pagination.
So
for
me
it's
not
big
issue.
It's
mostly
some
annoying
misunderstanding
misleading
the
result.
So,
for
me
it's
b3
pp4
s4
and
yes,
it
should
be
fixed.
B
A
So
so
I
mean
that
maybe
we
need
to
put
before.
Maybe
severity
is
freeze,
it's
normal,
but
but
I
am
not
sure
the
priority.
A
Moreover,
we
had
some
very
familiar
issue.
Is
another
entry
point
and
we
introduced
some
fix
for
it,
so
maybe
need
to
check.
Maybe
this
fix.
Maybe
it's
already
fixed,
I'm
not
sure
about
it,
but
I
remember
that
we
had
discussion
related
to
what
is
proper
behavior
when
you
put
some
zero
like
first
page.
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
One
additional
block:
why
is
why
we,
I
use
it
list
text
and
the
yes
list
text
list
text,
but
not
some
container
book.
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
But
definitely
mistake
we
should
have
another
blog.
I
don't
remember
a
clear
name,
but
there
should
be
some
another
block
which
should
be
like
container
without
html
without
any
side
effects.
So,
okay,
you
can
add
me
to
review
of
this
pr,
so
I
will
check
it
during
review,
but
so,
let's
back
to
our
main
goal.
So
for
me
it's
p3
s3.
A
But
let's
back,
what
is
our
recommendation?
Do
we
need
to
add
js
at
head
or
do
we
need
to
address
to.
B
Footer
we
need
to
address
in
future,
but
it's
case
by
case
this
is
dependent.
Sometimes
we
have
no
ability
possibility
to
add
our
javascript
to
the
bottom
of
the
page,
because
it's
requirements
of
the
scripts,
as
example
as
an
example,
as
I
remember
I'm
not
sure,
but
we
can't
add
google
analytic
to
the
end
of
the
page.
So
it's
the
case.
A
Also,
we
had
pretty
familiar
situation
with
recaptcha
when
we
need
to
enter
a
copyscript,
but
we
use
it
another
way
and
we
add
the
script
only
when
we
need
this.
So
we
did
not
add
this
to
all
of
page.
We
make
some
additional
script
and
try
to
this
through
join
the
add
the
script
only
during
a
ui
component
initialization.
A
B
This
is
first
point
and
the
second
point
it's
so
basic
mentioning
is,
of
course
we
have
some
more
complex
and
maybe
more
correct
way,
but
in
general
adding
scripts
to
the
page.
It's
so
so
so
common
and
simple
that
we
should
to
support
that
simplest
way.
Is
it
possible.
A
Okay,
that's
that's
why
asking
because
if
we
didn't
recommend
it
or
else
in
this
case
we
can
decrease
to
p4.
But
if
you
talk
that
it's
normal,
it's
it's
good
for
us!
So
let's
keep
p3
but
and
it's
honestly
a
little
bit
surprised
that
it's
it's
not
working,
because
absolutely
what
shoes
that
we
can
add
this
from
any
page
from
our
layout
updates.
So
it's
very
very
strange
that
it's
not
work
so
need
to
make
the
double
check
during
the
delivery
of
this
pr
on
on
qa
stage,
because
it's
it's
so
common
case.