Comment 49 for bug 1160365

2013/4/9 Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp <email address hidden>

> @Nhomar:
>
> Fore sure, the invoice needs a contact_id and a partner_id.
> It does not means that they have both to be displayed (partner_id can be
> hidden and set from the contact_id).
> However, the partner_id must always be a partner and not a contact. So we
> can safely rely on the partner_id field for grouping, analysises, links
> between documents...
>

Yes agreed...

FYI... I am uploading videos with issues found in the odony's solution.

on the MP, i think the will give us a visual part with problems.

Regards.

>
> --
> 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 <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
>

--
--------------------
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:
<email address hidden>
<email address hidden>
twitter @nhomar