[16.0][MIG] account_payment_order: Migration to 16.0 #1056
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…the Sorrento Code sprint 2016 Improvements include: - full re-organisation of modules and big re-organisation of the code - simplification of the code related to the fact that support for direct debit is now in t he base module, not added by an optional module account_direct_debit (module was removed) - new design of the wizard to select move lines to pay - support for non-SEPA file transfer- - support for German direct debit SEPA files (fixes bug OCA#129) - remove workflow of payment.order - add wizard of selection of move lines to pay
* IMP: prevent deleting a move-line that is linked to a payment order line * FIX: better filtering of move lines already included in open payment order
Take into account all the remaining remarks of Frederic Clementi dated May 30: - see multi-currency amounts in the wizard to add transaction lines - add help msg on bank payment lines
* IMP: extensibility of _prepare_move Pass the list of bank lines to _prepare_move so it is possible to customize the move (eg it's name) based on the lines being paid. * FIX: payment order: add missing onchange dependencies in move selection wizard
* Fix crash when selecting a customer that has a direct debit payment mode but no mandate * Hide many fields when payment_order_ok is False on a payment_mode * Fix payment line communication when the move line is not linked to an invoice (problem found when porting donation_debit_debit to v9) * For the communication field, if self.move_id.ref is False, fallback on self.move_id.name
Port almost all modules to v10 * Update to EPC Rulebook v9.2 that start to apply on 2016-11-20 (bug OCA#300)
* FIX: Bug OCA#353 crash when selecting a payment mode that has a variable link to a bank account * FIX: Add 'post_move' option on account.payment.mode with default True, to keep the previous behavior * IMP: Explicit error when bank account is missing on bank journal * IMP: Add field default_date_prefered on payment mode.
…ent order + allow to cancel an uploaded payment order
* Restrict the deletion of bank payment line * Add test_cancel_payment_order
context of payment orders, she should ocus on the amount that is due to be paid. In this method we are forcing to display both the amount due in company and in the invoice currency. We then hide the fields debit and credit, because they add no value.
When adding to a payment order from invoices, the payment mode considered is the one in the invoice, but once you have confirmed it, you can't change it, so if you change the payment mode in the journal items, it doesn't make the difference. With this change, this is taken into account for adding to the payment order(s) properly.
- when manually encoding a payment line, get company currency as default currency - Search on payment order numbers - Direct search on bank journal name in payment orders - remove widget="selection" on account.payement.mode : this object is rarely modified, so widget='selection' is not a time saver, but we miss the HTML link, which can be pretty convenient to check the configuration.
…Batch Content line
Add partner_bank_id column to avoid MemoryError on an existing Odoo instance with lots of data. partner_bank_id on account.move.line requires payment_order_ok to be True which it won't be as it's newly introduced - again nothing to compute. (see AccountMoveLine._compute_partner_bank_id() in models/account_move_line.py)
This commit split the tests for outbound payment in a base inheritable class that can be reused in other dependant modules, and the test of this module. similar to OCA@86bd1a2
The test introduced in 7bdb286 is not valid, as its indentation made it to not be executed. Anyways, the content and the tested things are also not correct.
- Add a hook method to retrieve communication type and communication - Improve normal communication if there is a credit note If there is a credit note that partially cancel an invoice, the payment communication should be the combination of the invoice reference and the credit note one. - Remove not needed assert as parameter is required - Use the 'payment_reference' field if filled in - Add existing payment references to communication If some movements have been reconciled with the original invoice, their references should be added in communication too. e.g.: Manual credit notes - Don't duplicate communication reference
The previous approach creates manually the journal entries and does all the hard work, plus not being 100% compatible with the bank statement reconciliation widget (requiring a patch on OCB to see blue lines). That decision made sense on the moment it was done (v9), where the native payment model (account.payment) was very limited, and wasn't able to store all the needed information for the bank transaction. Now that the limitations are gone, we can get rid off this extra model, and generate instead `account.payment` records, using both the native model + methods to perform the same operations. This serves also to workaround the problem found in OCA#966. All the code, views and tests of main module have been adapted to this new approach in this commit. Later commits will adapt the rest of the modules of the suite, and add migration scripts to transit from the previous approach to this new one. TT39832
Previous patch by Alexis created a co-dependency between account_payment_order and account_banking_sepa_direct_debit, which is not correct. This patch avoids such problem and fix properly the test, although the utility of some of them is debatible.
|
/ocabot migration account_payment_order |
pedrobaeza
force-pushed
the
16.0-mig-account_payment_order
branch
from
75d696d to
0c98de1
Compare
|
/ocabot merge nobump |
|
This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it! |
|
Congratulations, your PR was merged at 2fabbf9. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️ |
This was referenced Mar 9, 2023
|
@pedrobaeza Did you miss the migration folder? Or did you remove it yourself? Any particular reason? |
|
There are no migration scripts. They all happened in previous versions, not for this one. |
|
@pedrobaeza Into the original PR, they are 2 files: |
|
And they are incorrect. As said, they belong to older versions, where the refactoring to native payment happened. You reach this version with that refactoring done. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Commit history redone from scratch + squash administrative commits + bring and squash changes for 16.0 from #972 for finishing the migration.
@Tecnativa