[REF] Convert Elavon Payment Processor to be a core Extension

[seamuslee001]

Overview

This Converts Elavon to be a core extension and adds in a unit test on the Payment Processor

Before

Elavon Payment Processor shipped in core

After

Elavon Payment Processor shipped as a core extension and disabled by default

Note I did the upgrade script for 5.54.alpha1 because I figured we would do this post branching but it seems branching has been delayed a while

ping @eileenmcnaughton @totten @monishdeb

[civibot]

(Standard links)

• If this is your first pull-request for CiviCRM, please browse CONTRIBUTING.md for information about the development and testing processes.
• If you are reviewing this pull-request, you may wish to consult the test sites and the Review Standards (long template, short template).

[eileenmcnaughton]

This looks good from a code point of view - I'm going to r-run the install & rely on your test / your prod site testing ./ the fact the processor part is pretty well worn code for the Elavon functionality

A couple of points though

• mixins - my understanding is we don't need to include the mixin folder for extension releases that don't support earlier CiviCRM versions (including core extensions`
• mgd values for cleanup and update - I think the new install will wind up with unused for cleanup - which probabaly should be the default (even thought I personally mistrust it). I'm not sure about 'update` flip a coin

[seamuslee001]

Re Mixins I just presumed we committed everything and the Mixin files were there just as a backup

[eileenmcnaughton]

I checked a handful of other core extensions & they were 'mixin-free`

[colemanw]

Correct, and if you are using the latest version of Civix, it should not have generated the mixin directory if your <ver> is set high enough in info.xml, which it is so I'm not sure what's going on there, but at any rate the directory can be removed.

[seamuslee001]

ok I have removed the mixin folder and rebased to fix the conflict but I think this should be fine

[seamuslee001]

Jenkins re test this please

[seamuslee001]

@eileenmcnaughton is there any other issues with this PR now?

[eileenmcnaughton]

I'll wait & see if tests pass & then give it an r-run

[seamuslee001]

@eileenmcnaughton this is now rebased and as mentioned in call the upgrade tests some how cover both ways i.e. when you have payment processors of type elavon and when you don't

[eileenmcnaughton]

I gave this an r-run on the upgrade but am relying on the tests for the processor functionality as I don't have a way to test & the process @seamuslee001 went through to add tests on that first was solid