Skip to content

Conversation

@OriolMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@OriolMForgeFlow OriolMForgeFlow force-pushed the 16.0-imp-partner_company_type branch 5 times, most recently from 944bccc to 914e55c Compare November 17, 2023 09:18
@OriolMForgeFlow OriolMForgeFlow force-pushed the 16.0-imp-partner_company_type branch 2 times, most recently from 44a8411 to 5350466 Compare November 17, 2023 10:50
Copy link
Contributor

@JordiMForgeFlow JordiMForgeFlow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code review LGTM

@JordiMForgeFlow JordiMForgeFlow force-pushed the 16.0-imp-partner_company_type branch from 5350466 to 9c4d7ef Compare January 9, 2024 13:36
@github-actions
Copy link

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label May 12, 2024
Copy link

@AaronHForgeFlow AaronHForgeFlow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code review LG

Copy link
Contributor

@LoisRForgeFlow LoisRForgeFlow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code review 👍

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label May 19, 2024
@github-actions
Copy link

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Sep 22, 2024
@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

@rousseldenis could we get a review here? :)

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Sep 29, 2024
@rousseldenis
Copy link
Contributor

@OriolMForgeFlow @len-foss Isn't it the same problematic ?

#1917

I would say I'd prefer an EXCLUDE

rec.partner_company_type_id.country_ids
and rec.country_id not in rec.partner_company_type_id.country_ids
):
raise UserError(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You should raise ValidationErrorin a contraint.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rousseldenis corrected :)

@len-foss
Copy link

len-foss commented Dec 6, 2024

@rousseldenis
#1917 is to relax the name check to allow the same name to be used for 2 different country (which I assume would speak the same language, which isn't so rare in the world), which isn't actually done here.

Here there's a check to choose a company type to match the partner's country which is nice though.

Since it seems that different use-cases want for different constraint, it would make sense to have a configuration option to choose what is allowed. Therefore entirely drop the sql constaint for the python check.

@github-actions
Copy link

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Apr 13, 2025
@JordiMForgeFlow JordiMForgeFlow force-pushed the 16.0-imp-partner_company_type branch from ac966c5 to 1068af9 Compare April 14, 2025 06:33
@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

@len-foss @rousseldenis could we get this one merged?

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Apr 20, 2025
@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

@rousseldenis could we move this one forward?

def _check_partner_company_type_country_state(self):
for rec in self:
if not rec.partner_company_type_id:
return
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this not be continue?

Copy link
Contributor

@NL66278 NL66278 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This are very extensive changes without any reflection in the README. To me it is completely unclear what problem this PR is supposed to solve.

@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

@NL66278 you are right, README is now updated to reflect the purpose.

We don't have a problem with the module, we are simply proposing an improvement in order to manage the relation of Legal Forms with countries and their states. Legal Forms are very structured and predefined in most countries so it is a way to ensure and validate that the data is correct.

@NL66278
Copy link
Contributor

NL66278 commented Sep 16, 2025

@JordiMForgeFlow It is becoming more clear now. Would it be possible to consistently use the vocabulary of "Legal Entity Type" instead of Legal Form. The word "Form" is confusing at it suggest some kind of document or form that must be filled.

@JordiMForgeFlow JordiMForgeFlow force-pushed the 16.0-imp-partner_company_type branch from 73fa29e to cccddcb Compare September 16, 2025 08:25
@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

@NL66278 done :)

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
# Copyright 2023 ForgeFlow S.L. <http://www.forgeflow.com>
# License LGPL-3.0 or later (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The module itself has an AGPL license.

name="partner_company_type_id"
options='{"no_open": True}'
attrs="{'invisible': [('is_company', '=', False)]}"
domain="[ '|', ('country_ids', '=', False), ('country_ids', 'in', [country_id]), '|', ('state_ids', '=', False), ('state_ids', 'in', [state_id])]"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This can actually be split over multiple lines, would be nicer.

@JordiMForgeFlow JordiMForgeFlow force-pushed the 16.0-imp-partner_company_type branch from cccddcb to e203008 Compare September 16, 2025 14:47
@NL66278
Copy link
Contributor

NL66278 commented Sep 16, 2025

Two last small remarks and we should be good to go.

@JordiMForgeFlow JordiMForgeFlow force-pushed the 16.0-imp-partner_company_type branch from e203008 to 717b7ea Compare September 16, 2025 14:49
@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

@NL66278 thank you for the reviews, should be now ready :)

Copy link
Contributor

@NL66278 NL66278 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 Thanks for your contribution! LGTM

@NL66278
Copy link
Contributor

NL66278 commented Sep 16, 2025

/ocabot merge major

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1604-by-NL66278-bump-major, awaiting test results.

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 820958d. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit 86044ca into OCA:16.0 Sep 16, 2025
7 of 9 checks passed
@MiquelRForgeFlow MiquelRForgeFlow deleted the 16.0-imp-partner_company_type branch September 16, 2025 15:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants