Hi,
I was about to submit a problem/bug regarding the apparent incorrect reporting of validity on invoices - with the invoices showing the correct validity but then adding ", then" and adding the next period as well.
I found a message
that appears to relate
, and have applied the suggested fix in the language file at L 231 <"%s, then %s" => "%s",> and it now seems to produce the appropriate info for the invoices.
However I would feel more confident if I understood the original intent of the unhacked language file. Am I missing something obvious? Why would you ever want to show validity on an invoice that was implying a validity beyond that paid for?
If it is relevant most of my testing so far has been with offline payments.
J2.5.14 CB1.0 CBS3.0 - I have added before and after shots in case this is helpful.