-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 343
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Handle more complex commission structures #27
Conversation
veloutin
commented
Aug 17, 2015
- Support multiple commissions per agent
- Support commissions based on product margins
- Handle period-based commissions
- Support multiple commissions per agent - Support commissions based on product margins - Handle period-based commissions
@pedrobaeza You want to take a look? |
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ | |||
############################################################################## | |||
{ | |||
'name': 'Sales commissions', | |||
'version': '2.0', | |||
'version': '2.1', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please use new version numbering scheme: 8.0.2.1.0 (https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#version-numbers)
Hi, @veloutin, thanks for the effort of making such changes. I have started reviewing the PR, but I find a lot of difficulties to get the review done because:
So I ask you to rework on the changes and start with these smaller PRs. Thanks. |
- Handle invoice cancelling and refunding - Hide commissions from invoice and sale order form view - Correctly update to new commission rules when duplicating invoices
With the latest changes, the use case seems quite different from the original module:
I am wondering, is there any way to reconcile the original behavior with this one, or would this be better suited as an alternate module? |
It can be reconciled without problem with original behaviour. We just need to provide a migration path, in combination with good default values and something that can be reviewable, so please split the changes and make smaller PRs. |
@pedrobaeza What would be the scope of each PR ? |
A good scope can be each of the points that @veloutin has pointed. |
@pedrobaeza The points listed by @veloutin are the steps of the process. |
Each point can be easily a feature to be developped isolated. I insist to easy the review. |
@pedrobaeza I will try to split it as such and also try to avoid making several PRs with just as big changes, as it wouldn't help the review effort. |
Thank you very much. I'll review as soon you make the PRs. |
superseeded by #38 |