[FIX] l10n_din5008{*}: fix incorrect din5008 report addressing #183775
Conversation
|
|
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
7 times, most recently
from
a4387de to
4a5f3e1
Compare
antonrom1
changed the title
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
from
4a5f3e1 to
d768a18
Compare
addons/l10n_din5008_repair/report/din5008_repair_order_report.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
from
d768a18 to
518a815
Compare
C3POdoo
requested review from
a team and
Whenrow
and removed request for
a team
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
from
518a815 to
d4c68f3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah this is breaking the stable, we will do the simple fix you did last time since in 17.4 the code change it will be there for only 17.0 and 17.2 so i think it's ok, sorryyyyy 😬
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it's a small refactoring I could do on master
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f452235 to
1116955
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please change your commit message to follow our guidelines ([FIX] l10n_din5008...)
I raised a question about the way you're pushing your changes into the report: it's not the way I would have done it. Can you argue on why you did it that way and maybe show the added value, if any?
thanks Anton
| </xpath> | ||
| </template> | ||
| </data> | ||
| </odoo> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see what that does exactly... 🤔 what's the goal? and why does it have to be done by inheriting the template here, rather than directly in din5008_report.xml ?
| <odoo> | ||
| <data> | ||
| <template id="report_repairorder" inherit_id="repair.report_repairorder"> | ||
| <xpath expr="//t[@t-call='web.external_layout']" position="inside"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why inserting inside of the t-call instead of inheriting the report template to add your stuff? 🤔
I'm not sure which is best, but we should keep it consistent, I suppose...
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
from
1116955 to
74fc88b
Compare
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
from
74fc88b to
ebd029a
Compare
antonrom1
changed the title
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
from
ebd029a to
6816033
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is it different for proforma? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to this spec proforma's main address has to be the invoicing address, and the commercial partner has to be displayed as the beneficiary and not for saleorders. I didn't dig deeper into why
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, for proforma invoices the main address should be the invoicing address and for saleorder reports it should be the commercial address of the partner according to these specs
|
@antonrom1 oh yeah, totally makes senses... proforma has to be aligned with invoice report, not the quotation one 👍 @odoo/rd-runbot can we have an exception for the different views added in stable please? 🙏 |
|
Upgrade exception #415 added. Waiting the forward-port of this pr, the exception will be applied on all builds, and create an inconsistent state for migrations. PRs adding fields/models should be merged at the beginning of the week and all the forward ports should be merged in the same week. If you need to apply any change before it reaches master, please notify runbot team. Details: |
The DIN 5008 layout was not properly addressing reports on invoices and delivery slips. On invoices/pro-forma, the reports were not addressed to the correct partners (commercial partner instead of invoice partner). In the delivery slips the reports were not addressed to the delivery partner. This led to functionally and legally incorrect reports. task-4089521
antonrom1
force-pushed
the
17.0-din5008-layout-improvements-roan
branch
from
6816033 to
915ad26
Compare
|
@robodoo r+ |
The DIN 5008 layout was not properly addressing reports on invoices and delivery slips. On invoices/pro-forma, the reports were not addressed to the correct partners (commercial partner instead of invoice partner). In the delivery slips the reports were not addressed to the delivery partner. This led to functionally and legally incorrect reports. task-4089521 closes #183775 Signed-off-by: Quentin De Paoli (qdp) <qdp@odoo.com>
6 participants
The DIN 5008 layout was not properly addressing reports on invoices and delivery slips. On invoices/pro-forma, the reports were not addressed to the correct partners (commercial partner instead of invoice partner). In the delivery slips the reports were not addressed to the delivery partner. This led to functionally and legally incorrect reports.
task-4089521