My god... I'm getting desperate by now with all this history.
Why do you need including  a  new conceptual field partner_commercial_id
where partner_id used with that meaning is present on datamodel and
documents from begining??????? I don't understand the point.
Why don't you change aproach and mantain partner_id, even
partner_id.parent_id as it has been always and just add an additional field
contact_id not impacting on legal documents?

Seriously, I understand nothing.


2013/4/10 Fabien (Open ERP) <email address hidden>

> > Now trying to hide the conceptual errors
> > with a model that is conceptually bad anyway.
>
> This is where we disagree. We think the data model in v7 is good. (even
> better than in v6.1).
>
>
> On the invoice, we have a field partner_id which contains "Joël,
> Camptocamp".
> Your claim is that the data model is not good because it can not work
> without
> another field "Camptocamp". (let's call it partner_commercial_id)
>
> This field must be:
>    - related: it's implementation is one line:
> fields.related('partner_id','commercial_id')
>    - readonly: no other value than "Camptocamp" is possible
>
> It's clear that adding a readonly function field:
>    - DOES NOT change anything to the data model (you just add a redundancy)
>    - DOES NOT change anything to what you can do in the code, instead of
> doing
>      invoice.partner_id.commercial_id, you would do:
> invoice.partner_commercial_id
>
>
> Your extra field is just a technical artifact to allow group_by on
> "commercial
> entities" in invoices rather than "invoiced entities". Nothing more.
>
> We agree it's a good feature (we proposed it for v8 and, now we agree to
> do a
> module for v7) but: it's not a legal requirement, nor does it change
> anything to
> the data model (as you just add a function field)
>
>
> To be clear, we did one mistake in v7; the contacts did not inherited
> from accounting
> fields from their companies (like pricelists, account receivable) We
> should have
> done what we did for the address for these fields too. We missed that
> point. It's a
> 20 lines patch. The rest is just misunderstandings and fears.
>
> > And in any case, such semantic and conceptual changes should have been
> > debated explicitly at least 1 year before a version, certainly not 100
> > days after the "LTS" release.
>
> Yes, I do agree. We did not received enough feedback from the community
> on the version 7, during the RC phase. We got much more feedback for v6.1.
>
> These may be the reasons:
>    - We did less Release Candidate for v7 (1) than 6.1. (3)
>    - partners were expecting the v6.1 more than the v7 because there were
>      2 years between v6.1 and v7, compared to 10 months between v6.1 and
>      v7.
>    - most partners were still in their v6.1 implementations (as this
> version had
>      only 10 months old) and none really had the time to test v7. On
> v6.1, some
>      even started to deploy on trunk
>
> We will try to improve this for the next versions.
>
>
> Fabien
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
CEO Avanzosc, S.L <http://www.avanzosc.es> : Office phone / Tfono oficina:
(+34) 943 02 69 02
Ana Juaristi Olalde <http://www.anajuaristi.com/>: Personal phone: 677 93
42 59. User/usuario skype: Avanzosc  a
www.openerpsite.com


*El contenido de esta comunicación y de toda su documentación anexa es
confidencial y se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. El uso no
autorizado de esta información está prohibido por la legislación vigente.
Si usted no es el destinatario le rogamos nos lo indique, no comunique su
contenido a terceros y proceda a su destrucción. Disculpe las molestias que
le haya ocasionado la recepción indebida de este e-mail. Sus datos figuran
en un fichero cuyo titular es Avanzosc, S.L., a quien usted puede dirigirse
para ejercer sus derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición
en Julio Urkijo, 32, 20720, Azkoitia (Gipuzkoa), Tef. 943 02 69 02 -
<email address hidden> <email address hidden> *
* *

*Komunikazio honen edukia eta dokumentazio erantsia konfidentziala da eta
hartzaileak bakarrik jaso beharko luke. Indarrean dagoen legeriak debekatu
egiten du bertan eskainitako informazioa baimenik gabe erabiltzea.
Komunikazioa zuri iritsi bazaizu, baina zu ez bazara hartzailea, mesedez,
guri jakinarazi, eta jasotako informazioa ez inori jakinarazi eta suntsitu.
Barkatu okerreko email hau jasotzeak eragindako eragozpenak. Zure datuak
Avanzosc, S.L. enpresaren fitxategietan sartuta daude. Zure datuak atzitzea
eska dezakezu, bai eta, datuak zuzentzea, ezereztea eta tratamenduari aurka
egitea ere. Horretarako, enpresara jo dezakezu, helbide honetan: Julio
Urkijo, 32, 20720, Azkoitia (Gipuzkoa), telefonoa: 943 02 69 02 - **
<email address hidden> <email address hidden> *
*This message and all documents attached to it are confidential and
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any use of
this information by unauthorised persons is prohibited under current
legislation. If you received this message by error, please advise us,
destroy it and refrain from communicating its contents to third parties. We
apologise for any inconvenience receiving this email improperly may cause
to you. Your personal data are included in a file owned by Avanzosc, S.L.
If you want to exercise your rights of access, correction, erasure and
objection you can contact the Controller at Julio Urkijo, 32, 20720,
Azkoitia (Gipuzkoa), T: 943 02 69 02 –
<email address hidden><email address hidden>
*