The email before was too long About the same: ============= - commercial_id is not required on all objects as it's exactly the same than partner_id.commercial_id, so we will just put it where it's required as a technical artifact to allow specific reporting, not everywhere. ============= Case 3: Mix of Case 1 and 1: We can have case 1 and 2 in my last comment mixed. (You are migrating now one db with this approach A***) A "consortium" of companies with several childs that have "Subsidiaries" and with sevaral "Locations". IT is so much complex, we mix all our modules and we are improving all the interaction between the to solve this (It is a WiP) but I am aware that with all the restrictions an python code involved in Odony Solution without touch the db, it will become in a real mess. But BTW, I am open to hear solutions? Thanks 2013/4/15 Fabien (Open ERP) > On 15/04/13 03:04, Maxime Chambreuil (http://www.savoirfairelinux.com) > wrote: > > @fabien > > > > We all agree we need 2 levels, but disagree on field names: > > * The community wants contact and partner > > * OpenERP SA wants partner and commercial_entity > > I think we disagree on the principle, not on the field names. We want > partner_id, commercial_id because: > - partner_id is the main field (commercial_id is just a readonly > function field to guarantee consistency) > - commercial_id is not required on all objects as it's exactly the > same than partner_id.commercial_id, so we will just put it where it's > required as a technical artifact to allow specific reporting, not > everywhere. > > > > If we were having this discussion a year ago I would say : "Let's go > > with your data model with the same field names : contact vs partner" and > > OpenERP SA would have implemented it during 2012. > > > > Unfortunately, we never had this discussion last year, you chose to use > > one field partner_id and forgot about the second level. You realized the > > problem 3 months after the release and now you want to add the second > > level with commercial_entity_id. > > As I said, we don't want to add a second level everywhere as it's just > redundancy. But we are ready to create modules for every object the > community would like to change because it's compatible with our point of > view. > > > You are just trying to push your solution into our throat, because you > > already did the migration of your modules to the new field names. You > > leave us with no other way than migrating our modules AND updating them > > to your field names. You made a mistake and the community has to assume > > it. This is not fair and unprofessional. > > It's not community against OpenERP SA. Whatever the solution we choose, > the community have to adapt their modules to v7 for plenty of others > reasons (res.partner.address does not exists, new form views, ...) > Renaming contact_id into partner_id is just 10 minutes of work per module. > > The reason we think we should keep our model is because it's implemented > in trunk for one year and we did extensive tests and adapted all modules > for it. Trying to change this would have the opposite impact of what you > try to do: create much more bugs. > > > > Where does this lead us ? > > 1) OpenERP SA merges Olivier's branch and the community adapts his > modules to use partner vs commercial entity. > > 2) OpenERP SA assumes his responsibility, reverts its modules to use > contact vs partner, releases a 7.1 and handles the migration from 7.0 to > 7.1. > > 1. the community adapt his modules > 2. the community adapt his modules + we change all official modules (one > year) + review migrations > > And they are no real argument that makes us fell our data model is > wrong. I only hear one valid argument for now on: "desactivating a > contact". > > > Fabien, can you provide a third option where each party will at least > > get out of this situation with something ? Otherwise the frustration > > will go on forever. > > I'll try to make a proposition later today. > > > Can you also make sure the Community is involved earlier in the process > > to avoid this situation in the future ? I hope we will use this > > situation as a way to grow and move forward. > > Yes, we did not foreseen such a misunderstanding on the model otherwise, > we would have communicated earlier on the reasons of this change. (I > don't think we would have done it differently, because we think it's the > best approach for the product.) But this model is not new, we explained > it and demo it at the community days 2012, so it's in trunk since one year. > > And, they are much more changes that this one in the v7 (v7 = around > 1400 tasks for us). It's quite complex to explain every change into the > detail. We try to do our best: we invested a lot of time on the release > note that has more than 100 pages. But I agree it's not enough. > > So, I think: > > 1. We can improve the way we communicate for sure. It's often a problem. > 2. But we will still have such misunderstandings in the future (around > once a year, that's the current frequency) > > > Fabien > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to OpenERP > Project Group. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1160365 > > Title: > [7.0] incorrect handling of contact/companies for invoicing and > related purposes > > Status in OpenERP Addons (modules): > In Progress > Status in OpenERP Server: > In Progress > > Bug description: > == Problem Description == > > This issue is an attempt to formalize the various problems detected > with the res.partner refactoring that took place in OpenERP 7.0. Some > of the issues have already been discussed on bug 1151947, bug 1155679 > and on help.openerp.com. > > The main problems identified so far: > > 1) When a simple contact (type=contact) is selected as the reference > party for creating a business document (such as the customer on a > Sales Order), a proper invoicing partner (if any) should be selected > among the descendants of the "commercial party" to which the contact > belongs, instead of the contact itself. > > 2) Even when a simple contact is used as the invoicing partner for a > business operation (e.g. manually selected by the user as the invoice > address on a SO), all invoicing/accounting-related master data must be > taken from the relevant "commercial party" for that contact. This will > usually be the parent company. > > 3) When editing contacts/addresses, it is currently possible to view > and edit accounting/invoicing related data, while it should be clear > that this data is coming from the "related commercial party", usually > the parent company. > > 4) When searching though business documents for a company name, the > entries that were issued for one of the company's contacts/addresses > should be found as well. > > 5) It has been reported that in some countries it is not permitted to > issue invoicing documents for a contact, so the name of a relevant > invoicing must be used instead (Financial Department or parent > Company). > > 6) In "Analysis" reporting views, result that are grouped by partner > will not be automatically aggregated at company level. > > == Proposed Solution== > > The rationale for the proposed solution is based on the following points: > - We think the 7.0 partner model is appropriate and should not be > considered the cause for these functional/usability problems > - We think the solution should be mostly handled by the res.partner > model itself, so that it fixes most modules automatically. > - We think that in many cases, using a contact/address is the right > level of granularity, and any reporting based on that is fundamentally > correct. Invoicing/Accounting is specific for the reasons mentioned above, > and automatically selecting the proper entity to use should make reporting > provide the expected result. > > Based on this, we propose the following solution. Parts A & B are > meant to solve the issue of using the right invoicing/accounting data > at all times (issues 2 & 3 mainly), while parts C, D & E are meant to > improve the selection of invoicing entities and the related reporting > (issues 1, 4, 5 & 6): > > A) Let the "commercial party" for a partner be the person or company > that is used as reference for all invoicing/accounting matters. The > "commercial party" is computed as: the first parent that is marked as > a company (is_company is checked) or is the root of the hierarchy if > there is no company. It can be the partner itself if it's a company or > if it has no parent. > > B) The relevant invoicing/accounting data will only be editable on an > "commercial party", and all contacts/addresses that are descendants of an > "commercial party" will inherit those settings. This will be done as > follows: > - when a partner is not an commercial party, the form view will be > modified: the Accounting tab and the Invoicing section of the > Sales&Purchases tab will be replaced by a note that says something like > "Invoicing settings are controlled on ". > - when writing() on a partner that is an commercial party, all the > values of invoicing/accounting-related fields will be automatically copied > to all descendants that are not commercial party themselves (e.g. > pricelist, G/L accounts, payment terms, etc.). The list of fields to copy > will be returned by a method on res.partner that can be overridden in other > modules. > - when changing the parent of a partner causes a change of "commercial > party", the same fields will be copied > > C) When a contact/address is selected as the reference for a business > document (SO/PO), the system should automatically select appropriate > invoicing and delivery parties from the relevant "commercial party". This > is the responsibility of the res.partner.address_get() method (legacy name > for backwards-compatibility), and it must be adapted for the new model. > The new algorithm should search in the whole hierarchy of the partner, > stopping at the parent "commercial party", as defined in A. This will be > used automatically by the on_change triggers on SO/PO/etc, and should > ensure that the proper invoicing and delivery partners are always selected. > > D) The res.partner.address_get() method considers the partner type > "default" as a wildcard, so any partner with type "default" is seen as a > match for any requested type. This is correct but unfortunately "default" > is the default value, which would stop the lookup described in C at the > first step. The "default type" for a partner will be changed to "contact", > so that unless otherwise specified a simple contact cannot be used as > "invoicing partner" or "delivery partner", unless it is itself a > "commercial party". > Note: even if a simple contact has type "default" or "invoicing", the > accounting/invoicing settings would still come from the relevant > "commercial party". It will simply be seen as a possible choice for the > "invoice partner" (e.g. the partner_invoice_id field on a SO) > > E) The search view of the main business documents will use the > "child_of" operator when matching contacts/partners. For example all > invoices issued to any contact from Agrolait will be found when > searching for "Partner: Agrolait". > > UPDATE: > F) (Already implemented in 7.0) When booking journal entries for any > partner, the system always links them to the "commercial party" related to > the partner (the first parent company or root partner). This makes sure > that reporting and reconciling Journal entries will always work properly. > > > == How does the solution solve the issues == > > Let's address the issues one by one: > > 1) When selecting a contact as the Customer for a Sales Order, a > proper "invoice address" and "delivery address" will now be > automatically selected, thanks to C & D. > > 2) Any code in business modules that deals with invoicing/accounting > related data should automatically use the data of the "commercial > party", thanks to B, because the data should always be in sync. > > 3) Directly addressed by B. > > 4) Directly addressed by E. > > 5) Thanks to C & D, an appropriate "invoicing partner" should always > be automatically set on SO/PO, in B2C and in B2B cases. So if you want > "Agrolait" to be displayed on all invoices that corresponds to SOs > issued for "Sylvie Lelitre (Agrolait)", just make sure that "Sylvie > Lelite" does not have "invoice" or "default" type, but has type > "contact" instead (which will be the default). > > 6) Due to the previous points (especially 5), an appropriate invoicing > partner should always be selected on all invoices, regardless of who > what the contact to which the SO/PO was issued. This will make > reporting behave as expected in most cases. There will be cases where > the contact granularity appears (e.g when grouping Sales Orders on > Customer), but this expected and correct. In general the same contact > will appear for most documents related to the same commercial party. > > For all other case, such as domains, contexts, etc., contacts should > be a valid level of granularity, keeping in mind the major use cases: > B2B with 2 levels of hierarchy: company and contacts, and B2C with 1 > level (normal case) or 2 levels of hierarchy (ecommerce/webshops with > multiple addresses for each customer) > > == Further refinements == > > In trunk some extra things could be planned to further improve some > aspects, such as: > - the "commercial party" field could become a stored function field on > res.partner, so that it becomes very easy to add related fields on any > document - making reporting per company even easier. > - other suggestions welcome > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/openobject-addons/+bug/1160365/+subscriptions > -- -------------------- Saludos Cordiales Nhomar G. Hernandez M. +58-414-4110269 Skype: nhomar00 Web-Blog: http://geronimo.com.ve Servicios IT: http://vauxoo.com Linux-Counter: 467724 Correos: