Holger, thanks for your comments. I tried to address them in my latest commits or the comments below.
> #550 570, 880 considering how often you use this selection, you should move > it to its own field. This also > simplifies adjusting the selection I'll leave it for now as I want to refactor it later on to make the selection options more dynamic. > #1591 check if there are line_ids As this code path occurs after a match with a bank transaction on amount, an absence of line_ids should not occur as the payment order amount would be zero as would the transaction amount. > #1784 why can we drop this check? shouldn't it be changed to check for > transit_move_line_id? As per l.1591, implement old style behaviour for legacy payment orders depending on the presence of transit_move_line_id. The sent state implements the transit move. Making it go into sent_wait allows the reconciliation process to cancel and reconfirm confirmed matches. Before I introduced the latter state and modified the workflow to go from 'done' to 'sent', I could not reconfirm a match on a payment order, because then the workflow would attempt to create the transit move again. I'd think that a manual migration for wkf instances currently in the 'sent' state should be necessary, or they might get stuck at that state. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~therp-nl/banking-addons/ba7.0-MIG-payment/+merge/166451 Your team Banking Addons Core Editors is subscribed to branch lp:banking-addons/banking-addons-70. -- 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
