Hi Alexis, > In fact, from my experience, if all banks respect the guidelines of the > European Payments Council (http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/), we > shouldn't have several dialects to implement, because these guidelines are > pretty accurate. We'll see if we are confronted to such problems ; in this > case, we will modularise the code in order to be able to inherit the > generation of the XML file.
Well, all Dutch banks have published addendums with requirements that say 'Leave this element out' or 'Always fill this element with NOTIMPLEMENTED'... But I have not yet gotten the feedback from the bank's validation service so I will keep you updated on this. > > I'll try to find some time in the coming days to clean-up the function > _validate_iban which should avoid the big block of code in the POT file. By > the way, do you think that it's necessary the validate the IBAN in the > generation of the XML file ? The IBAN is already validated when we enter it > in OpenERP, so it may not be necessary to validate a second time ? I think you are correct. In fact, what is missing is a generic function in the payment order to check whether there is a bank account of the allowed type for every payment order line. I will add one soon. So you could perhaps remove the validation method entirely. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/banking-addons/trunk-banking-addons-sepa/+merge/167514 Your team Banking Addons Core Editors is subscribed to branch lp:banking-addons. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~banking-addons-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~banking-addons-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
