Skip to content
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

new module purchase extended #25

Merged
merged 82 commits into from
Oct 8, 2014
Merged

Conversation

lepistone
Copy link
Member

see __openerp__.py for details. Thanks!

jbaudoux and others added 30 commits September 29, 2014 10:43
… methods, licenses, ...

(../generic-addons/ rev 10.1.3)
…ntation for brackets (pep-8)

(../generic-addons/ rev 10.2.1)
…er to replace the only attribute to modify

(../generic-addons/ rev 10.2.2)
…es; use orm.Model rather than osv.Model

(../generic-addons/ rev 10.2.3)
(../generic-addons/ rev 10.2.4)
(../generic-addons/ rev 10.2.5)
…fy the reading flow

(../generic-addons/ rev 10.2.6)
(../generic-addons/ rev 10.2.18)
      [IMP] improved bid workflow
(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.1)
…ate cancelled rfq/po

(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.3)
…ing bids in case of open call for bids + add check call for bids has lines when confirming

(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.13)
(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.14)
(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.15)
…osv.Model, osv.osv_memory by osv.TransientModel

(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.16)
(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.17)
(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.20)
… launching a wizard

(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.21)
…ted workflow

(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.26)
(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.28)
(../generic-addons/ rev 15.5.32)
… we need to take care of when changing the PO line to ensure we don't change the price (onchange_product_id)'

(../generic-addons/ rev 29.1.17)
…l for bids process

(../generic-addons/ rev 29.2.1)
…e. Please see nested history for details

(../generic-addons/ rev 33)
@yvaucher
Copy link
Member

yvaucher commented Oct 7, 2014

👍

@max3903
Copy link
Sponsor Member

max3903 commented Oct 7, 2014

I would suggest to rename the module because any module is "extending" another.

Few ideas that pops up reading the description:

  • purchase_type
  • purchase_order_rfq_type

👎

with the right naming.


In the scope of internation transactions, some fields have been added:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/internation/international/

@gurneyalex
Copy link
Member

I have nothing against renaming to something more descriptive.

purchase_rfq_bid_workflow ?

@jgrandguillaume any suggestion?

@jgrandguillaume
Copy link
Member

👍 for purchase_rfq_bid_workflow => it reflects what we do here, clarifying the workflow for bid, rfq and po.

@lepistone
Copy link
Member Author

@jgrandguillaume and others: can you suggest a new name for purchase_requisition_extended as well? PR not ready yet, code here: https://github.com/lepistone/purchase-workflow/tree/8.0-add-purchase_requisition_extended/purchase_requisition_extended

@yvaucher
Copy link
Member

yvaucher commented Oct 8, 2014

👍 for the renaming.

By the way it would be the right time to add a summary to __openerp__.py

@yvaucher
Copy link
Member

yvaucher commented Oct 8, 2014

For the name of second module you could name it purchase_requisition_bid_encoding or purchase_requisition_bid_selection.

@lepistone
Copy link
Member Author

I renamed the module as suggested. I fixed the typos reported by @gurneyalex. Thanks!

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+38.35%) when pulling 0ac8e74 on lepistone:8.0-add-purchase-extended into 537b2e4 on OCA:8.0.

@max3903
Copy link
Sponsor Member

max3903 commented Oct 8, 2014

👍

@lepistone
Copy link
Member Author

thanks for reviewing!

lepistone added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2014
@lepistone lepistone merged commit f62db97 into OCA:8.0 Oct 8, 2014
@lepistone lepistone deleted the 8.0-add-purchase-extended branch October 8, 2014 13:36
dnplkndll pushed a commit to Kencove/purchase-workflow that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

10 participants