On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Fabien (Open ERP) <email address hidden> wrote:

> >
> > 1) scenario 10: What about invoice to walt Disney but send it to john do
> > that as to validate it because he is in charge of want should be done
> > and has role to verify that the invoice is correct ? You have this with
> > company and international office for example. The man "accounting
> > manager" of ACME is the contact of all invoice for FR office, BELGIUM
> > Office, but invoice is linked to fr office, BELGIUM office  .. I may be
> > wrong but I have two customer that do this actually and I don't know how
> > to setup this in v7. With rapahel branch I just have to set contact to
> > "accounting manager" and partner to fr Office for example. But yes we
> > have to link openchatter, email and commication to contact_id instead of
> > partner id. Like you said rename partner_id by contact in module take
> > 10min ;)
>
> Like in v6.1: you create several accounting manager, one for each
> company. (or you install base_contact) Please note that it does not work
> for raphael branch too.
>
> Side note: Your use case is very strange, I don't think I ever saw an
> accounting soft that do that. (I never saw an accounting software that
> prints two addresses on an invoice, one for the real company, another
> one for the company that should receive it. When there are a second
> address on invoices, it's for delivery address)
>
>
> > 2) Invoice issue and task on timesheet.
> >
> > - Create a contract (annual support contract) with company ACME. You
> define that support cost 60 EUR / hours.
> > - Check task and issue on this contract and invoice on timesheet.
> >
> > Now a man (or woman !) call me because he/she has a problem. I create an
> > issue assigned to me, and contact Miss Anna who want to have adresse on
> > openerp in different tables. I work on it and record my work time. As I
> > can have more than one open project with ACME, and as OpenERP set it to
> > mandatory, I need to record my time on a project/analytique account. But
> > as my previous screenshot show, you have no analytic account in many2one
> > widget because they are filtered on contact, and contact has no project
> > on it, this is ACME that has this.
>
> It's a bug. (the first we found that requires to change addons/business
> documents)
> Should be fixed by Olivier.
> We should grep "domain.*partner_id.*=.*partner_id" in the code.
>

Just to clarifiy @Fabien, documents has partner_id (as contact) and linked
to company ACME, where i get fiscal data ? partner ? company ?

Regards,

>
> > I think contact_id is the right granularity for end user guy (person
> that use openerp and record some data), but company (partner_id) is the
> right granularity for business document. If you want to have what you
> code in V7 juste set partner_id to invisible and add the onchange
> function to set the correct partner_id. no data duplication, no problem.
> The only data replication you have is when contact and partner are the
> same, but it will be "rare" enough,  because in real world you speak
> with contact (person, department, etc ..) about business object of a
> company he belongs to.
>
> We are convinced that the current solution is the right one.
>
> We may find a few bugs because all objects/views have been changed in
> v7, but not that much. (note that this one is the very first we found on
> addons related to the partner issue, all others have been fixed on the
> partner object)
>
> >
> > I really like the simplicity of what as be done, but to be honest, we
> > are losing consistancy and stability just because you choose to connect
> > / fusion contact and partner and think I not so simple ...
>
> No, the new model is more consistent that the old one. In the old one, we
> could have inconsistencies like that, printed as an address of an
> invoice/SO:
>     Company X
>     Address of Company Y
> The consistancy is guaranteed by the fact that there are no double
> information for the same thing as commercial_id is a function field.
>
> I agree about the maturity, even if the new approach already fixed
> several issues of v6.
>
> The transition requires some effort, but the future with the v7 model is
> much simpler and clean. (less fields on objects, no unnecessary
> on_change, less lines of code, more use cases handled, easier for the
> end user, better reflects the reality).
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenERP
> > Drivers, which is subscribed to OpenERP Server.
> > 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 <link to commercial party>".
> > - 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
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to OpenERP
> Addons.
> 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 <link to commercial party>".
>   - 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
>



-- 
Cristian Salamea
@ovnicraft