@Fabien.


2013/4/9 Fabien (Open ERP) <email address hidden>

> On 04/09/2013 10:19 AM, Stefan Rijnhart (Therp) wrote:
> > @Fabien I yet have to hear approval for your approach from any
> > established OpenERP partner or other stakeholders. If the partners that
> > do speak up all disapprove, they can not all be wrong.
>
> Yes and no.
>
> No: This reminds me the GTK discussions; everyone wanted to maintain
> GTK, fork, stay on v6.1, ... At the end, focusing on one clean web
> client was one of the most important move OpenERP did in the pasts months.
>
> Yes: This means we have to bring a big attention on the issue. We have
> to understand everyone's argument, evaluate all proposed solutions and
> find the best ones. And that's what we are doing.
>
>
> We are just not convinced by proposed arguments and we think there have
> been a lot of misunderstandings/confusions/noise on the issue. Not
> everyone perfectly understood: our solution & the real problem. So,
> discussions are biased by the one that speak louder.
>
>
> I know it can be frustrating as we lead OpenERP like Linus Torvalds lead
> Linux: on our core module we have the final decision on any merge. But
> that has been the strength of OpenERP: having a clear direction.
>
>
> We are all very smart: You are smart and We are smart too. So, if we
> succeed concentrating a real issues/use cases (and not trying to push
> our own solution without fully understanding other ones) we should agree
> on the best scenario.
>

I am totally agreed with this PoV Fabien, and even I speak so loud today i
must to say you one thinking in my side.

I am trying to  make Objective all my points, and all here are doing, but,
this time, I think again, you are comparing in a wrong way the problem.

Linux, is an operative System, is you change the structure your data stay
inmaculated, imagine Linus Say -without any consult-, "Hey from now we will
delete all first page of the writter docs, because this is not necesary
'usually' it has just the cover" and after say this he make the push
silently and all documents start to be lost....

Do you understand my Analogy?

My Friend, again we are with you, always, our Plan of Life is with OpenERP
or dying trying, but please, this kind of changes __must__ to be discussing
at least for 2 trunks.... and better analysed, IMHO, this result is about
the misunderstanding from your side of the importance of an ERP in a
Company, we can't delete a process just because it is not generic... in
this way you will finish being Excel , Dont you think?

>
>
> --
> Fabien Pinckaers
> CEO OpenERP
> Chaussée de Namur 40
> B-1367 Grand-Rosière
> Belgium
> Phone: +32.81.81.37.00
> Fax: +32.81.73.35.01
> Web: http://openerp.com
>
> --
> 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