Fix Financial Items incorrectly recorded when using Payment API

[mattwire]

Overview

See: https://lab.civicrm.org/extensions/mjwshared/-/issues/20
Related: https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/financial/-/issues/188

@kcristiano and @christianwach came to the same conclusion independently here: https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/financial/-/issues/188#note_66337

There appear to be various situations where financial items can get incorrectly recorded. This PR was a result of https://lab.civicrm.org/extensions/mjwshared/-/issues/20 which we thought was an issue with drupal webform (where we could reproduce it) but it turns out to be a problem with the recommended way of recording payments - ie. API3 Payment.create.

Before

Missing data (eg. financial account) in some cases.

After

Recorded correctly.

Technical Details

Hopefully explained in the comments that I've added to the function as it was difficult to understand what was going on in the code before.

Comments

@kcristiano @christianwach @JoeMurray

[civibot]

Thank you for contributing to CiviCRM! ❤️ We will need to test and review the PR. 👷

Introduction for new contributors

• If this is your first PR, an admin will greenlight automated testing with the command ok to test or add to whitelist.
• A series of tests will automatically run. You can see the results at the bottom of this page (if there are any problems, it will include a link to see what went wrong).
• A demo site will be built where anyone can try out a version of CiviCRM that includes your changes.
• If this process needs to be repeated, an admin will issue the command test this please to rerun tests and build a new demo site.
• Before this PR can be merged, it needs to be reviewed. Please keep in mind that reviewers are volunteers, and their response time can vary from a few hours to a few weeks depending on their availability and their knowledge of this particular part of CiviCRM.
• A great way to speed up this process is to "trade reviews" with someone - find an open PR that you feel able to review, and leave a comment like "I'm reviewing this now, could you please review mine?" (include a link to yours). You don't have to wait for a response to get started (and you don't have to stop at one!) the more you review, the faster this process goes for everyone 😄
• To ensure that you are credited properly in the final release notes, please add yourself to contributor-key.yml
• For more information about contributing, see CONTRIBUTING.md.

Quick links for reviewers

• ➡️ Demo site for this PR
• 📖 Review standards
• 🗒️ Review template (brief or verbose)

[eileenmcnaughton]

@mattwire it would be nice to get a PR with those 2 variables renamed for a quick merge to make this more readable - totally makes sense that $lineItem is clearer than $value

[seamuslee001]

@eileenmcnaughton already done here #26986

[eileenmcnaughton]

nice!

[mattwire]

Cleaned up, added more comments to code. This PR is now ready for review (assuming tests pass) and I think fixes an important issue.

[colemanw]

retest this please

[christianwach]

@mattwire Comparing IDs was what I thought fixed this - as you seem to have gathered from previous discussion - so nice one for doing this 👍

[eileenmcnaughton]

So I had this PR on my to-do list but hadn't looked yet cos it needed a unit test so I wasn't in a hurry to deal with that. And then fortuitously I fixed another test to be more correct & hit this bug - #27277 - I was able to confirm that this fix makes that test work so that makes it 'has-test' & the fact it fixed it combined with review from @kcristiano & @christianwach makes me happy to merge it. Thanks for the fix!