El dijous 17 de juliol de 2014 17:28:19 UTC+2, Albert Cervera i Areny
va escriure:
2014-07-17 16:46 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier cedric...@b2ck.com
javascript::
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.
May this field be required or optional?
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.
I just uploaded a review that implements it:
http://codereview.tryton.org/8501002/
--
Sergi Almacellas Abellana
www.koolpi.com
Twitter: @pokoli_srk
