-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 298
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
[8.0] res.partner and italian localization #50
Comments
What extensions are you referring to? |
i don't know what happen at my post ... something whit enclosure .... the extension are: On res.partner: CodEORI On Company: REA: CapitaleSociale - Integer RegimeFiscale - Special Code |
In this case I think we should make 3 modules.
|
Ummm .. i agree except for base_eori, if we put this field inside the module stock-logistic we make dependence of the fatturaPA module and this module only for the extra field. Maybe better make an extra-field module only whit base_eori and let the modules (stock-logistic and fatturaPA) force the dependence on this? |
https://github.com/OCA/stock-logistics-workflow is not a module, it is a repository. The module would be named base_eori and it would only contain the extra field (maybe later a code validation could be added) |
|
i'm actually not in favor of having new modules that add just a field. unless this field brings some complexity. |
@dcorio in general I think modules that add just a field should be avoided when such a field can be added manually or through a custom module. |
In general i agree whit @dcorio becouse this will grow the number of modules. But in this case i agree whit @eLBati because the field maybe is mandatory for different modules (all the module that interact whit PA) and later we could add extra logic for autocomplete partner based on indicepa and validate the code. This is in my personal plan for future release of the module, but at the moment i need only the filed for the other module. I'm not sure on fiscal_data module, because this filed are in many cases mandatory for the italian low .. but until this was many and not all ... separate module maybe is the correct way. |
What do you suggest? PS: I don't think a growing number of modules is a bad thing. |
even though just for fun, i started to work on this, months ago: the idea was to create a module to manage all the stuff needed to integrate PA services. i also created this: Not saying this is the way, but i think that too many inherited views on critical models like res.partner could slow down the system. Anyway, right now we suffer for a lack of features, then it's fine to have this as a stand-alone module. |
REA data: #100 |
…ment [PORT][8.0] vertical-ngo/transport_plan becomes stock_shipment_management
…rnal l10n_it_central_journal
2 module implement some useful extension .. pec and ateco.
But i need extension to fulfill the requirement of the fatturaPA module but this extension should be useful for other module like for example spesometro.
I mean:
1.2.4
1.2.4.1
1.2.4.3
1.2.4.4
1.2.4.5
1.2.1.8
The question is ... the right approach .. implement this extension inside the fatturaPA module or make a single filed extension or make a generic module whit all this extension and maybe pec+ateco?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: