On 2018-02-08 16:50, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote: > El 07/02/18 a les 18:22, Cédric Krier ha escrit: > > On 2018-02-07 18:01, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote: > >> El 07/02/18 a les 17:51, Cédric Krier ha escrit: > >>> On 2018-02-07 17:27, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote: > >>>> El 07/02/18 a les 16:43, Cédric Krier ha escrit: > >>>>> On 2018-02-07 16:26, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The account_deposit module defines a new kind of account (Deposit > >>>>>> account) but there is no deposit account on the Spanish CoA. After a > >>>>>> little bit of digging i found that the Spanish CoA includes deposit > >>>>>> accounts for customers (4380) and suppliers (4070), so this accounts > >>>>>> should be marked as deposit. This requires to add the account_deposit > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> dependency of the account_es module, but not sure if this is the best > >>>>>> way as this module also adds new functionaly on party and invoice which > >>>>>> is not relevant to people not using the deposit functionaly. > >>>>> You may put those account inside a extra depend module. > >>>> The main issue here is that this account should be included on the > >>>> balance sheet so probably the best is to use the deposit kind when the > >>>> account_deposit module is installed and the other type when not > >>>> installed. > >>> I do not think it is possible to do that. > >> I've achieved it by adding the the following code at the end of the xml > >> definition: > >> > >> <data depends="account_deposit"> > >> <record id="pgc_4070_normal" model="account.account.template" > >> update="1"> > >> <field name="kind">deposit</field> > >> <field name="party_required" eval="True"/> > >> </record> > >> <record id="pgc_4380_normal" model="account.account.template" > >> update="1"> > >> <field name="kind">deposit</field> > >> <field name="party_required" eval="True"/> > >> </record> > >> </data> > > Are you sure that the ir.model.data is correct when the module > > account_deposit is activated? > > fs_values only contains the values of the last update (kind and > party_required) but other fields are not computed. Which if i understand > correctly this is not correct. > > Is this something that we should fix?
If we want to use this feature, yes the fs_values must reflect the sum of what was written by the module. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tryton-dev" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton-dev/20180208192323.GA7321%40kei.
