Vincent Renaville@camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/account-financial-tools/account-contraints-state-vre into
lp:account-financial-tools.
Requested reviews:
Account Core Editors (account-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/account-financial
jeffery chen fan has proposed merging lp:~jeffery9/ocb-addons/ocb-addons into
lp:ocb-addons.
Requested reviews:
OpenERP Community Backports Team (ocb)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~jeffery9/ocb-addons/ocb-addons/+merge/193883
fix bug#1247018
--
https://code.launchpad.net
Review: Needs Fixing
Hi, Etieene, thank you veyy much for the MP, but to be usable, we need that you
start from a clean branch (without modifying the executable bits of all files).
When you fix this, I will check the rest of the MP.
Thank you for your understanding.
Regards.
--
https://code.l
Etienne Hirt has proposed merging lp:~hirt/ocb-addons/6.1_base_contact_finalize
into lp:ocb-addons.
Requested reviews:
OpenERP Community Backports Team (ocb)
Related bugs:
Bug #923440 in OpenERP Addons: "Base_contact: Missing Fields in new design
[6.1]"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/openobjec
** Branch linked: lp:~openerp-dev/openobject-addons/7.0-opw-593185-rha
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenERP
Community Backports Team, which is a bug assignee.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1220716
Title:
Reordering rules and PO destination warehouse not m
copy() is faster than dict() in python 2.6
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5861498/fast-way-to-copy-dictionary-in-python
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/ocb-server/7.0-propagate-context-1247158/+merge/193630
Your team OpenERP Community Backports Team is subscribed to branch
lp:ocb-s
I will report a bug on addons before. and then link this merge to the new bug.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~0k.io/ocb-server/usability-and-fix-on-res-partner-1/+merge/185339
Your team OpenERP Community Backports Team is subscribed to branch
lp:ocb-server.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.n
Hello,
Olivier has invalidated the related bug.
The hypotheses he used are in an quit different paradigm than the one in this
patch.
I would like to have the advice of Frederic or other to see it Olivier point of
view is sustainable in term of real life business or if we should revert the
f
Review: Needs Fixing
Hi Joël,
Access rules missing on the landed.cost.distribution.type model
My proposition is:
access_landed_cost,landed.cost.position,model_landed_cost_position,purchase.group_purchase_user,1,1,1,1
access_landed_cost_distribution_type_user,landed.cost.distribution.ty
Ok, thanks for the update, go for it !
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:40 PM, sebastien beau
wrote:
> Hi as said in the MP, I think it's better to split this module 180 line
> can be in common and implementing the exception in a new module will be
> done in only 40 line of python.
> Note : I am totaly
Lorenzo Battistini - Agile BG has proposed merging
lp:~agilebg/purchase-wkfl/adding_purchase_order_revision_7 into
lp:purchase-wkfl.
Requested reviews:
Purchase Core Editors (purchase-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~agilebg/purchase-wkfl/adding_purchase_order_
Hi as said in the MP, I think it's better to split this module 180 line can
be in common and implementing the exception in a new module will be done in
only 40 line of python.
Note : I am totaly agree to merge your work without discuting of that, my
aim was just to inform everyone about this change
Sorry I made a mistake around 180 line in the generic module
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer/sale-wkfl/move_sale_exception_module_from_e-commerce-addons-jge/+merge/193567
Your team OpenERP Community Reviewer is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community-reviewer/sale-wkf
After my split I have around 140 ligne of python in exception_rule and around
40 in sale_exception so I really think it's worth to split it because we will
avoid to duplicate the 140 ligne in every module for nothing, it's not a lot
but it's always better to no duplicate the code (on improvement
** Changed in: openobject-addons
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenERP
Community Backports Team, which is subscribed to OpenERP Community
Backports (Addons).
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1238525
Title:
[7.0] Wrong aver
Hi,
As Pedro said in the MP having such a general module doesn't seems
mandatory. The exception can IMO define in every module., that the solution
I suggest for now.
Moreover, the sale_exception module was already there like this. So I just
moved it. We can't assume doing both in one. Your sugges
See my comment here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer/sale-wkfl/move_sale_exception_module_from_e-commerce-addons-jge/+merge/193567/comments/446517
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer/e-commerce-addons/move_sale_exception_to_sale_wkfl_branches-jge/+merg
Hi,
+1 for Pedro. Having such a general module doesn't seems mandatory. The
exception can IMO define in every module.
Moreover, the sale_exception module was already there like this. So I just move
it. We can't assume doing both in one. Your suggestion may break
back-compatibility so... My sug
>We face this problem too, but we used to fix the not reconciled entries
>(Importing historical paymens too globally and in some cases just to close
>correctly all periods when we will start to use the accounting approach), it
>means, if we >report some periods in one way and other periods in ot
Yeah, I did it also on a fresh DB, so maybe the problem is another. I will
investigate further when I have a little time, but do you have any tip about
what is happenning?
Regards.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~therp-nl/ocb-server/6.1-lp933496/+merge/193011
Your team OpenERP Community Backport
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/ocb-server/7.0-registrymanager-rlock-1238560-gbr into
lp:ocb-server.
Commit message:
[FIX] missing a threading.RLock in RegistryManager.get():
if no registry exists and several calls to RegistryManager.get() are called at
the
Hi, Sébastien, is there too much logic on exception_rule so that it is
mandatory to split it in one module?, or it can be easily repeated in
consequent other modules "purchase_exception", "stock_exception", etc?
Regards.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer/sale-wkfl/move_s
Yeah, I agree with both Holger and Stefan. I have faced the same problem, but
it is necessary to fill a bug on openobject-addons project with the proposed
fix and let OpenERP S. A. decide if they include it on official branch, and if
not, then merge it here.
Regards.
--
https://code.launchpad.
To have it as reference, there is another old MP that treats the same topic
(and I think with the same solution):
https://code.launchpad.net/~account-report-core-editor/account-financial-report/fix-opening-period-search/+merge/162772
Regards.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~luc-demeyer/account-f
> Understand. Though, that's not working if you have a year without accounting
> entries at all and 1 (empty) opening period.
We have seen this situation before and we just removed the opening period. This
is of course a workaround that doesn't tackle the real issue.
> Considering all the case
2013/11/4 Luc De Meyer (Noviat)
> The problem is that you have many OpenERP systems out there which have
> been used for years for other purposes than accounting.
> During those years, accounting entries have been generated but these
> entries were only used for e.g. one department or only sale/p
> The problem is that you have many OpenERP systems out there which have been
> used for years for other purposes than accounting.
> During those years, accounting entries have been generated but these entries
> were only used for e.g. one department or only sale/purchase of goods, ...
> Real recon
The problem is that you have many OpenERP systems out there which have been
used for years for other purposes than accounting.
During those years, accounting entries have been generated but these entries
were only used for e.g. one department or only sale/purchase of goods, ...
Real reconciliati
Hi,
How does this change work for Chinese support ?
How can I set this up in company? In headers?
What do I need set up? Font name with font path?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/ocb-addons/ocb-7.0-fix-1088412/+merge/165335
Your team OpenERP Community Backports Team is subscribed to bra
Agreed that we need a bug report to establish what this code fixes exactly
(although I get an idea when I read the code) and to link the ocb proposal and
the upstream proposal to (if it exists, which is mandatory).
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~0k.io/ocb-server/usability-and-fix-on-res-partner
Hi, I am working on the split of sale_exception in two module "sale_exception"
and "exception_rule". The aim is to have the exception on different object like
purchase_order, stock_picking, invoice ... (already implemented on
purchase_order and soon on picking).
If we put the module sale_excepti
Hi, I am working on the split of sale_exception in two module "sale_exception"
and "exception_rule". The aim is to have the exception on different object like
purchase_order, stock_picking, invoice ... (already implemented on
purchase_order and soon on picking).
If we put the module sale_excepti
I'm not sure either.
Don't you think it's better to revert the change to get the test suite
green again and merge again when we are sure?
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Holger Brunn (Therp) wrote:
> I'm not so sure if this is a problem with the code rather than with the
> test.
>
> The change
What do other ocb-commiters think about this one?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~0k.io/ocb-server/usability-and-fix-on-res-partner-1/+merge/185339
Your team OpenERP Community Backports Team is subscribed to branch
lp:ocb-server.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-reviewer
Review: Approve code review
I think
self.write([...], context=dict(context, lang='en_US'))
would be nicer, but it's fine with me as it is
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/ocb-server/7.0-propagate-context-1247158/+merge/193630
Your team OpenERP Community Backports Team is subscribed to br
I'm not so sure if this is a problem with the code rather than with the test.
The change introduced is that we don't silently ignore non-draft purchase
orders any more, which seems correct to me. Shouldn't the test cancel all
related pickings before cancelling the requisition?
In any case, give
Thanks for the split
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~luc-demeyer/account-financial-report/7.0-account_financial_report_webkit-fixes/+merge/172359
Your team Account Report Core Editors is subscribed to branch
lp:account-financial-report.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-r
Review: Needs Fixing
Hi,
Thanks for the proposal.
While I understand the logic you want to change I don't understand what problem
you want to fix (I could maybe guess but I'm not sure).
The code you propose was the same and we had to replace it by the more
convoluted version that you want to r
@Maxime: while this would be OK on regular community projects, on OCB projects
modifying the change at merge time could cause a conflict because the proposal
on upstream does not contain such modifications. In order to prevent the
conflict, the space needs to be added to both proposed branches o
Review: Approve code review
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~savoirfairelinux-openerp/lp-community-utils/fix-pep8-and-add-new-projects/+merge/186938
Your team OpenERP Community Reviewer is subscribed to branch
lp:lp-community-utils.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community-revi
40 matches
Mail list logo
