[15.0][MIG] account_payment_term_partner_holiday: Migration to version 15.0 #523
Conversation
…xclude it when payment term assigned in invoices set due dates
…_in_holiday() to filtered correctly when day_to is less than date to compare [IMP] Improve is_date_in_holiday() to work fine in child partners [IMP] Add constraint to holidays to prevent month_to < month_from [FIX] account_payment_term_partner_holiday: Change month_from and month_to fields to convert in 2 characters to order correctly holidays + Script migration
…ds account_payment_term_extension and change the way to set correctly due date according payment term lines definition (not +1 day always)
LudLaf
force-pushed
the
15.0-mig-account_payment_term_partner_holiday
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e8fc9bf to
b717be7
Compare
|
@chienandalu please review. @pedrobaeza please review. |
| def action_post(self): | ||
| """Inject a context for getting the partner when computing payment term. | ||
| The trade-off is that we should split the call to super record per record, | ||
| but it shouldn't impact in performance. | ||
| """ | ||
| for item in self: | ||
| _item = item.with_context(move_partner_id=item.partner_id.id) | ||
| return super(AccountMove, _item).action_post() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a migration bug but it should be fixed though. This code will allways exit in the first loop iteration. So it will break the expected behavior when several invoices are posted with this method. Attending to the core method design (odoo/odoo/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L3081-L3086), this would be IMO a better approach:
| def action_post(self): | |
| """Inject a context for getting the partner when computing payment term. | |
| The trade-off is that we should split the call to super record per record, | |
| but it shouldn't impact in performance. | |
| """ | |
| for item in self: | |
| _item = item.with_context(move_partner_id=item.partner_id.id) | |
| return super(AccountMove, _item).action_post() | |
| def action_post(self): | |
| """Inject a context for getting the partner when computing payment term. | |
| """ | |
| for move in self: | |
| super(AccountMove, self.with_context(move_partner_id=move.partner_id.id)).action_post() | |
| return False |
ping @victoralmau
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, you are right, that is incorrect.
Reviewing in v13 I see that action_post() method does not recompute the payment terms lines (this is only done by form when changing some fields), therefore I think that method could be removed directly. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if the invoice date was empty?: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c79bda62edd8316c2a5754d8aa8838f8aa4caee0/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L2989-L2992
LudLaf
force-pushed
the
15.0-mig-account_payment_term_partner_holiday
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e641b93 to
1eeee6f
Compare
LudLaf
force-pushed
the
15.0-mig-account_payment_term_partner_holiday
branch
from
1eeee6f to
0df8043
Compare
|
All changes have been applied. Thank you for your comments. |
|
/ocabot migration account_payment_term_partner_holiday |
|
What a great day to merge this nice PR. Let's do it! |
|
Congratulations, your PR was merged at 65f8f99. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️ |
…moves with multi-record (Found in OCA#523 (comment)). TT37271
…moves with multi-record (Found in OCA#523 (comment)). TT37271
…moves with multi-record (Found in OCA#523 (comment)). TT37271
…moves with multi-record (Found in OCA#523 (comment)). TT37271
…moves with multi-record (Found in OCA#523 (comment)). TT37271
…moves with multi-record (Found in OCA#523 (comment)). TT37271
TT37271
@Tecnativa
Standard migration to version 15.0