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

[16.0][ADD] account_analytic_organization: New module account_analytic_organization #691

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 2, 2024

Conversation

mpascuall
Copy link

This module adds a new field on the partner. This organization field is also added on the account analytic line and account move line so you can filter and group by it.

cc https://github.com/APSL 160524
@miquelalzanillas @lbarry-apsl @javierobcn @peluko00 @BernatObrador @ppyczko please review

@mpascuall mpascuall force-pushed the 16.0-add-account_analytic_organization branch 2 times, most recently from 0711d9e to f048a2b Compare September 18, 2024 12:08
Copy link
Contributor

@peluko00 peluko00 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good work, tested in runboat and code review. LGTM!

@miquelalzanillas
Copy link
Contributor

A filter for 'analytic_org_id' field in both search views of journal and analytic entries would be great. Please, can you add it?

image

@mpascuall mpascuall force-pushed the 16.0-add-account_analytic_organization branch from f048a2b to a4eb9b6 Compare September 19, 2024 08:50
@mpascuall
Copy link
Author

A filter for 'analytic_org_id' field in both search views of journal and analytic entries would be great. Please, can you add it?

image

Thanks for your feedback! I added the filter in both views

@miquelalzanillas
Copy link
Contributor

miquelalzanillas commented Sep 19, 2024

Hello again @mpascuall ,

I missed to check the form view for the new model 'account.analytic.organization' in the previous review.

As this new model has a single field ('name') I think would be much useful using inline edition in the list view instead of using the form view. What do you think?

@mpascuall mpascuall force-pushed the 16.0-add-account_analytic_organization branch from a4eb9b6 to 4f5628d Compare September 19, 2024 10:29
@mpascuall
Copy link
Author

Hello again @mpascuall ,

I missed to check the form view for the new model 'account.analytic.organization' in the previous review.

As this new model has a single field ('name') I think would be much useful using inline edition in the list view instead of using the form view. What do you think?

Hi! You're absolutely right, thanks for the feedback! Could you please review again?

@mpascuall mpascuall force-pushed the 16.0-add-account_analytic_organization branch from 4f5628d to 4a00107 Compare September 30, 2024 10:40
Copy link
Contributor

@miquelalzanillas miquelalzanillas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code and functional review. LGTM.

@miquelalzanillas
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @pedrobaeza ,

Could you review please?

Copy link

@ppyczko ppyczko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, tested in runboat

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

/ocabot merge nobump

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-691-by-pedrobaeza-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit 4063e16 into OCA:16.0 Oct 2, 2024
9 checks passed
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 2c9c9ea. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

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.

6 participants