[19.0][MIG] subscription_oca: Migration to 19.0#1393
Conversation
|
/ocabot migration subscription_oca |
|
@stferraro The commit history looks really weird, you need to keep the history of the module I expect to see those commits: https://github.com/OCA/contract/commits/17.0/subscription_oca (translation commits can be merged) Please find here the whole instructions for module migration: https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Migration-to-version-19.0 |
|
@yvaucher ok close this pr and open new with this change for migrate this module |
|
You can push force on this one to fix it, no need to close it. |
Currently translated at 95.7% (159 of 166 strings) Translation: contract-16.0/contract-16.0-subscription_oca Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/contract-16-0/contract-16-0-subscription_oca/nl/
Updated by "Update PO files to match POT (msgmerge)" hook in Weblate. Translation: contract-17.0/contract-17.0-subscription_oca Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/contract-17-0/contract-17-0-subscription_oca/
Currently translated at 100.0% (163 of 163 strings) Translation: contract-17.0/contract-17.0-subscription_oca Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/contract-17-0/contract-17-0-subscription_oca/it/
Currently translated at 92.6% (151 of 163 strings) Translation: contract-17.0/contract-17.0-subscription_oca Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/contract-17-0/contract-17-0-subscription_oca/fi/
|
Thank you for the clarification. I have reviewed both version 17 and 18, and I was not able to find any record rule related to multi-company in those implementations of the module. Could you please point me to the specific PR or commit where this record rule was introduced, and in which part of the module it should be located? This will help ensure the implementation is aligned correctly with the intended standard approach. Thanks again for your support. |
|
@yvaucher please approved this PR and merge to 19.0 |
|
@ stferraro Sorry for misleading you. What I meant was that I have implemented the record rule in my local v17 installation. I'm a newbie to this so I don't know how to add stuff in here :) |
|
@yvaucher can we merge this pr ? Looking forward for the contract v19 :) |
stferraro
changed the title
stferraro
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-subscription_oca
branch
from
d46db7c to
00b7f8b
Compare
|
hi, @pedrobaeza please check this pr and approve ! |
|
Sorry, nop, I don't use it, and I don't want to either, because for me, the best one is |
|
Final code looks good, I have just a doubt on the git history, did you integrate an additional fix for #1320min the migration commit? If so could you separate it in an other commit? It would help for backport. |
stferraro
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-subscription_oca
branch
2 times, most recently
from
50396e2 to
be39aba
Compare
yvaucher
left a comment
yvaucher
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code LGTM
Just rename your Migraçion commit to be in English.
stferraro
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-subscription_oca
branch
from
be39aba to
8dc41de
Compare
|
@thib-d it requires a second approval, if you tested it and approve this PR we can merge it. |
|
Hi, @CristianoMafraJunior please check this PR and approve |
|
#1428 @stferraro I saw this, is it a bug or a misunderstanding ? |
|
Hi!, @thib-d , i resolve the bug (#1428), for your second question based on the module documentation, this functionality is out of scope for subscription_oca. Subscription management from the backend (create/manage subscriptions, start date, recurring invoicing via cron). |
…ew subscriptions (OCA#1428 bug)
|
@thib-d please code review and functional test please ! |
|
Hi, @Tisho99 please check this pr |
|
Didn't saw saw any bug :) |
19 participants
“Applied the requested test corrections as per review.”