On 17 Jul 16:16, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > name and code seem redondant > > I don't think they're redundant. I see it just like party and product > which both have product and code. Though maybe we could make it work > like in party, by default. So the sequence is not required.
It is. You will have generated code or custom name but not both. So I guess it should be possible to do it like for party code. > > The linkage with stock_lot doesn't seem to me as a real benefit. But it > > could be a simple informational link if both modules are installed. > > It should not be a requirement but it has some use cases. For example, > a company who sells a large machine for which it later manages its > maintenance for the customer. When sold, it should use the lot as a > serial number but as soon as it starts doing the maintenance it will > need to create the asset. I think it is wrong. Something you have sold can not be an asset. > I think that whereas the relationship between asset and account.asset > should be o2m (you can have different depreciation tables because the > asset is paid in several invoices). I don't agree. You don't have many depreciation for the same asset. If you have many invoices for the same asset, you just don't link the asset to any invoice line and manage the amount manually. > I think the link between stock.lot > and asset it would be a o2o. At least I cannot imagine a reason for > o2m or m2o here. I think o2o is wrong, it should be many2one. Because a lot is not necessary a unique serial number. So with a many2one, it will be more flexible. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgprBhauJT5zj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
