* Betr.: " Re: [tryton-dev] Converting 'move' from a Many2One to a One2One in account.invoice" (Mon, 5 Dec 2011 07:47:25 +0100):
> A Dilluns, 5 de desembre de 2011 00:00:34, Cédric Krier va escriure:
> > On 04/12/11 21:47 +0100, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
> > > As $subject says, think we should convert the relationship between
> > > account.invoice and account.move from a Many2One to a One2One because
> > > that better represents their relationship. I think we should also make
> > > it browsable from account moves to invoices because that's a very usual
> > > need when implementing new accounting modules. We should simply add the
> > > 'invoice' field as a One2One in account.move.
> >
> > I don't see any advantage. I will prefer to try to prevent bloating the
> > account.move table with field that are not always needed or meaningful.
>
> Well, there are two questions here: One is to make the relationship a One2One
> and the other one to add the field to account.move. For the former I think
> that it is better because that's simply the relationship that exists between
> Invoices and Moves. You cannot have an invoice with several moves nor a move
> with several invoices, so that makes sense to me.
Not sure about that. Because right now we also have a 'link' from move lines to
invoices for Payment Lines. If you are consequent, you will also want to browse
from those (payment) moves to the invoice, i.e. you will have to update that
invoice field (or display it via function field or whatever) on the move of the
line. And from that on it is no more one2one.
--
Mathias Behrle
MBSolutions
Gilgenmatten 10 A
D-79114 Freiburg
Tel: +49(761)471023
Fax: +49(761)4770816
http://m9s.biz
UStIdNr: DE 142009020
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
