El 08/02/18 a les 20:23, Cédric Krier ha escrit: > 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. I'm not sure if it's worth to implement it. Let me explain: Currently we are forced to update a record definition of the same module because the new kind is not defined on the same module but on another one. The problem is that account_es doest not depend on account_deposit and we don't want to add the dependency. Normally this is fixed by adding the code on a third module that depends on both modules.
I don't think there are so much uses cases for defining the same record (with different values) on two different modules. Indeed I can not see any other usage that fixing this issue. For me it will be simpler to define the deposit kind on the account module (so CoA modules can define accounts with the deposit kind). I don't see any drawback of allowing this kind on the account module. -- Sergi Almacellas Abellana www.koolpi.com Twitter: @pokoli_srk -- 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/46fa92e1-0961-7cfe-3b26-72c89365a961%40koolpi.com.
