[10.0][IMP] sale_commission: Add settlement lines' analysis views #216
Conversation
|
Have you seen the work about analysis done in 11.0/12.0? I think it's more interesting to backport it than to create a divergence in views/features that will difficult migration path. |
|
No i'm mostly using 10.0. Ok I'll take a look and backport a version for an easier migration path. 11.0 or 12.0? |
|
Thanks @pedrobaeza for the hint, I tried to have a more complete set of the new commits with As for this PR, I cherry-picked as you suggested. |
With no name, the link between Odoo field and SQL column can't be done. Fixes OCA#194
SimoRubi
force-pushed
the
10.0-imp-sale_commission-settlements_menu
branch
from
0c48524
to
b3dff5a
Compare
| comodel_name='res.company', | ||
| default=lambda self: self.env.user.company_id, | ||
| required=True | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't company_id be used in a record rule?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@eLBati it could be added in order to add the 'automatic filtering' in multi-company environments but, as far as I know, it is not mandatory.
In particular, I added this field because it was necessary after the changes backported from v11 and there (https://github.com/OCA/commission/tree/11.0/sale_commission) I haven't found any record rule.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should add that record rules for proper multi-company support, which is indeed a pending topic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok then I'll add them in a separate commit so we can easily forward port them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, great. You should put a migration scripts for emptying company_id field for avoiding mis-behaviors when you have commissions in several companies, or even better, try an heuristic for deducing the company of each settlement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pedrobaeza emptying company_id is not possible because it is required, I'm trying to find the correct company for each settlement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pedrobaeza @eLBati I added the record rules and the migration scripts as you requested, please have a look, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm seeing that the company is already present in 11.0:
SimoRubi
force-pushed
the
10.0-imp-sale_commission-settlements_menu
branch
3 times, most recently
from
88714d3
to
817b0e2
Compare
…after backporting from 11.0
Otherwise get this:
commission/sale_commission/models/settlement.py", line 198, in _check_company
if record.agent_line.company_id != record.company_id:
AttributeError: 'account.invoice.line.agent' object has no attribute 'company_id'
SimoRubi
force-pushed
the
10.0-imp-sale_commission-settlements_menu
branch
from
817b0e2
to
12bc1f3
Compare
…for settlements and their lines, and for agent lines
SimoRubi
force-pushed
the
10.0-imp-sale_commission-settlements_menu
branch
from
12bc1f3
to
11688d4
Compare
…lated field to improve performance
SimoRubi
force-pushed
the
10.0-imp-sale_commission-settlements_menu
branch
from
d5e9178
to
eb85cff
Compare
Yes, in my opinion they refer to different improvements that might be forward ported more easily if they are separated commits |
|
/ocabot merge |
|
Rebased to ocabot-merge-pr-216-to-10.0-by-pedrobaeza-bump-no, awaiting test results. |
|
Merged at ff792d8. Don't worry if GitHub says there are unmerged commits: it is due to a rebase before merge. All commits of this PR have been merged on the main branch. |
Add menu item for analysis views: