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

[15.0][FW] account_payment_purchase: multiple ports from 14.0 #1357

Conversation

sebalix
Copy link
Contributor

@sebalix sebalix commented Sep 19, 2024

pedrobaeza and others added 2 commits September 19, 2024 11:47
Steps to reproduce the problem:

- Have a partner without payment mode.
- Create a PO with such partner.
- No payment mode is filled.
- Now fill the payment mode in the partner.
- Create the invoice for the PO.

Current behavior:

The invoice has empty payment mode.

Expected behavior:

The invoice has the partner payment mode. Someone may think that having
no payment mode in the PO may prevail over the partner's payment mode,
or even their flows may consist in empyting the payment mode in the PO
for not binding it with anything yet, but that strategy has more holes
than the one implemented here, as the flow presented proves.

You can then use another one like having an extra payment mode
"Undetermined" or similar for doing such classification as a more
resilient strategy.

It includes a regression test that fails before the change and now is
correct.

TT38608
Use company of purchase order when checking the partner.
Field supplier_payment_mode_id is company dependant.
@sebalix sebalix marked this pull request as ready for review September 19, 2024 09:54
@sebalix
Copy link
Contributor Author

sebalix commented Sep 19, 2024

#955 already ported in 16.0 here: #1291

@pedrobaeza pedrobaeza added this to the 16.0 milestone Sep 19, 2024
Copy link
Member

@pedrobaeza pedrobaeza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fast-tracking this for matching branches:

/ocabot merge patch

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 15.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1357-by-pedrobaeza-bump-patch, awaiting test results.

OCA-git-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2024
Signed-off-by pedrobaeza
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@pedrobaeza your merge command was aborted due to failed check(s), which you can inspect on this commit of 15.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1357-by-pedrobaeza-bump-patch.

After fixing the problem, you can re-issue a merge command. Please refrain from merging manually as it will most probably make the target branch red.

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

/ocabot merge patch

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you.
Prepared branch 15.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1357-by-pedrobaeza-bump-patch, awaiting test results.

OCA-git-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2024
Signed-off-by pedrobaeza
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@pedrobaeza your merge command was aborted due to failed check(s), which you can inspect on this commit of 15.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1357-by-pedrobaeza-bump-patch.

After fixing the problem, you can re-issue a merge command. Please refrain from merging manually as it will most probably make the target branch red.

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

/ocabot merge patch

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you.
Prepared branch 15.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1357-by-pedrobaeza-bump-patch, awaiting test results.

@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit 7b6a441 into OCA:15.0 Sep 20, 2024
7 checks passed
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 4449d96. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

@sebalix sebalix deleted the oca-port-account_payment_purchase-14.0-to-15.0-16ce59 branch October 23, 2024 08:51
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