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

[ADD] fieldservice 0.0.1 #2

Merged
merged 60 commits into from
Oct 2, 2018
Merged

[ADD] fieldservice 0.0.1 #2

merged 60 commits into from
Oct 2, 2018

Conversation

max3903
Copy link
Member

@max3903 max3903 commented Sep 7, 2018

#3

@max3903 max3903 changed the title [ADD] fieldservice [ADD] fieldservice v0.0.1 Sep 7, 2018
@max3903 max3903 self-assigned this Sep 7, 2018
@max3903 max3903 added this to the 11.0 milestone Sep 7, 2018
@max3903 max3903 removed their assignment Sep 10, 2018
@max3903 max3903 changed the title [ADD] fieldservice v0.0.1 [ADD] fieldservice 0.0.1 Sep 11, 2018
@max3903
Copy link
Member Author

max3903 commented Sep 27, 2018

Todo:

  • Scheduled Starting Date --> Scheduled Start
  • Scheduled End Date --> Scheduled End
  • Field Service Person --> Assigned To (on order and route)
  • Duration --> Duration in hours
  • Starting Date --> Actual Start
  • End Date --> Actual End
  • Add stage Planned before En Route
  • On the route, show the sequence and the stage

@max3903 max3903 mentioned this pull request Oct 1, 2018
Closed
Copy link

@robertrottermann robertrottermann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would like to have this merged, so we can start working with it

Copy link
Member

@dreispt dreispt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A few style issues to fix, and a few design questions to clarify.

'utm',
'rating',
'portal',
'web_timeline',
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe we should be neat on dependencies: afaics we don't actually need utm, rating and portal right now.
These dependencies should added by a "FSM portal" module extension.

Regarding the web_timeline, I see the point - it makes the base module flashier.
But adding the additional dependency on the web OCA repo will add some trouble for people trying to install this from the FSM Github repo. So, it is not a showstopper, but I would rather separate the timeline into a different module (that can be made after this PR is merged).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<odoo>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no_update="1"?
This should be suggested default data, not required data.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

_inherits = {'res.partner': 'partner_id'}
_description = 'Field Service Location'

description = fields.Char(string='Description')
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we use nameinstead of descriptionit will be automatically picked by name_get for record representation.

color = fields.Integer('Color Index', default=0)

# Request
name = fields.Char(string='Name', required=True,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

string="Title"?

default=lambda self: _('New'))
customer_id = fields.Many2one('res.partner', string='Customer',
domain=[('customer', '=', True)],
required=True,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Consider not making it mandatory in the base module.

_name = 'fsm.order'
_description = 'Field Service Order'
_inherit = ['mail.thread', 'utm.mixin', 'rating.mixin',
'mail.activity.mixin', 'portal.mixin']
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we really need all these at this point? (utm, rating and portal)


class ServiceLocation(models.Model):
_name = 'service.location'
_description = 'Location of the service'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this to indicate a precise location inside a fsm.location?
Should it be linked to a fsm_location_id?


class ServiceRequest(models.Model):
_name = 'service.request'
_description = 'Details of the Service Request'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this for Work Orders inside a Service Order?
Should it have a order_id field for the parent Order?

name="action_cancel" string="Cancel"
type="object" groups="fieldservice.group_fsm_dispatcher"
attrs="{'invisible': [('stage_id', '=', %(fieldservice.fsm_stage_completed)d)]}"/>
<field name="stage_id" widget="statusbar"/>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a hard coded stage list and workflow.
I would prefer a more flexible stage/state combination, more friendly for each customer's specific workflow.
We can have a separate discussion on this topic if you like.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks

</group>
<group>
<field name="fold"/>
</group>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would be good to include Teams in the FSM base module, and allow for different Stages for each team:
my "Installations" team might have a different workflow from my "Repairs" teams.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

See #5

@max3903 max3903 merged commit 133c573 into OCA:11.0 Oct 2, 2018
max3903 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2018
murtuzasaleh referenced this pull request in murtuzasaleh/field-service Mar 27, 2019
murtuzasaleh pushed a commit to SerpentConsultingServices/field-service that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2020
murtuzasaleh pushed a commit to SerpentConsultingServices/field-service that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2020
OCA-git-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2021
baimont pushed a commit to acsone/field-service that referenced this pull request Apr 27, 2021
ankit-serpentcs pushed a commit to AmmarOfficewalaSerpentCS/field-service that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2022
victoralmau pushed a commit to Tecnativa/field-service that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2022
victoralmau pushed a commit to Tecnativa/field-service that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2022
victoralmau pushed a commit to Tecnativa/field-service that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2022
max3903 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2022
OCA-git-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2023
OCA-git-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2024
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.

4 participants