2014-07-17 16:46 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <cedric.kr...@b2ck.com>: > 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.
Maybe not name but I think that a 'description' not required field makes a lot of sense. >> > 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 understand you mean that the asset must be owned by the company but I don't see a reason for limiting this. The activity of a company can be managing other companies assets. >> 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. What's the problem with managing it this way? Anyway I think your idea is to add a m2o from account.asset to asset, so it is up to the user if he wants to create one or several account assets. > >> 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. Good point. -- Albert Cervera i Areny Tel. 93 553 18 03 @albertnan www.NaN-tic.com
