$product->getRatingSummary() always returns null on products with ratings

[ntoombs19]

Steps to reproduce

1. Override this template in a theme 'Magento_Catalog/templates/product/view/review.phtml`
2. Change the last parameter in the getReviewsSummaryHtml method to false so the method call in the template looks like this

<?php echo $block->getReviewsSummaryHtml($block->getProduct(), false, false)?>

Expected result

1. A reviews summary will only be displayed for products that have ratings

Actual result

1. A reviews summary is not displayed for any products; even ones that do have ratings.

Additional Information

1. Set a break point on the first line of the getReviewsSummary() method in the class \Magento\Review\Block\Product\ReviewRenderer
2. Load the product detail page of a product that has a rating
3. Evaluate this expression once your breakpoint is hit $product->getRatingSummary()
4. It will always evaluate to null even with a product has a rating. Because of this, when $displayIfNoReviews is set to false, the if statement in which this line lives will evaluate to true and an empty string will be returned.

[oserediuk]

Hello @ntoombs19 ! I cannot reproduce this issue by your steps. Do you still have this issue? Which code version do you use?

[vduglued]

I'm having the same issue. When the third parameter to getReviewsSummaryHtml is set to false, even if the product has reviews, the summary stars are not shown.

[vduglued]

I think @ntoombs19 made a mistake in his steps to reproduce. It should read:

Change the last parameter in the getReviewsSummaryHtml method to false

The expectation is that when $displayIfNoReviews is false, the message "Be the first to write a review", is suppressed. When there are reviews, the stars should display as normal.

The reality is that when $displayIfNoReviews is false, the message is suppressed, but so are the stars, even when the product has ratings.

The reason is, as @ntoombs19 points out, is that $product->getRatingSummary() always returns null.

In an ideal world, we'd also get rid of the boolean with the negative name, which would prevent the @ntoombs19 error and my three hundred edits of this comment for the sake of clarity and fixing my own mistakes ;)

[andimov]

@vduglued
Thank you for clarification on this issue!
@ntoombs19
Is it make sense for you?

[ntoombs19]

@andimov Yes that makes sense. I've corrected my mistake.
@vduglued Thank you for finding my error. It is indeed very confusing to have negative boolean variable names.

[andimov]

@ntoombs19
Ok, thank you! So I'll close this issue as not a bug. Feel free to reopen if it needed.

[vduglued]

I think the bug is valid. The error was in reporting it in a slightly confusing way, but the bug is definitely real...

[ntoombs19]

@andimov I think you misunderstood. I made a mistake in my initial bug report saying to change the last parameter to true when I meant to say false. This is indeed a bug and it needs to be resolved. This issue needs to be reopened and my updated bug report needs to be reproduced and confirmed as a bug and then fixed.