Price set with memberships and donations incorrectly requires membership imo

[petednz]

if it is still on demo

priceset is here http://d45.demo.civicrm.org/civicrm/admin/price/field?reset=1&action=browse&sid=9&new=1

join page is here http://d45.demo.civicrm.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=2

Steps to generate problem

Select 'none' for the radio button, and enter an amount in donation field.

OUTCOME: Please select at least one membership option

I don't believe this is the right outcome and don't recall it being an issue in earlier versions but ... can't find proof of that. it is a problem on demo and is on our 4.4.7 installs too

[Dave Greenberg]

Pete - It looks like this behavior has been around for a while. Git 'blame' shows it was present when we migrated from svn in Feb 2013

6a488035 (Tim Otten         2013-02-28 21:49:20 -0800  933)           $errors['_qf_default'] = ts('Please select at least one membership option.');

I agree that the form rule should ideally respect the is_required properties of each of the price fields - BUT not sure what the behavior should be if NO options are selected (which would be possible based on the fact that both your price fields are 'not required').

[Eileen]

Tim AGAIN - that commit he did was a killer 

You can't say an amount is a requirement because it could be a free membership only.

So the question is - does there have to be at least one price option selected - or is it valid that the form would wind up working like a glorified profile. I'm inclined to say the latter because I don't think it takes much to imagine use cases BUT then there wouldn't be a way to say 'the minimum acceptable amount for this form to be accepted is $0.01' - which would be a fab addition to price sets I guess.

NB based on looking at the code I think this is not an easy change & one that probably will need to be mulled over for a bit

[Eileen]

Also the change would have to be 4.6 - so that wouldn't help in the meantime - except perhaps if we created a free membership type that was sold 'quietly' on the form it would probably work.

[petednz]

so the conclusion here is using the Membership Block approach works for 'no membership' because that form lets us specify if 'membership is required'

but if we opt to use Price Set we are hamstrung?

[Eileen]

I would love to get rid of membership blocks. Functionality-wise, I would say the main things they provide as the separate payment option & I think if that were moved to pricesets (ie make that a price field setting) we could get rid of them without losing functionality. But the code still needs a lot of re-work to do that.

[petednz]

Just to verify i wasn't talking from the wrong end - here is a Contrib page with Membership radio and Contribution/Donation field. It permits me so select no membership and proceed with making a donation.

I can see why we had a strong assumption that this would also work using a price set - shame we spotted it 5 mins before the public launch 

[Dave Greenberg]

I do think this could be fixed for 4.6 (i.e. change the form rule logic to follow the price_field is_required property). And I agree with Eileen that a non-zero amount selection should not be required (it currently isn't in any case since folks are using quick-config forms and price sets to offer free memberships).