A Dilluns, 5 de desembre de 2011 16:12:33, Mathias Behrle va escriure: > > It is still a One2One because the name of the relationship is different. > > One is the move of the invoice and the other one of the payment. > > My point is: If you want to be able to browse from account moves to > their respective invoices, you will also want to do this from account moves > relating to payment lines. Finally you would want to know on any move, if > the current move is related in any way to an invoice and to which one. You > would have the original move of the invoice (payable/receivable) and the > payment move(s) pointing to one same invoice. Correct?
The thing is that the relationship between both has a "name". So you can have two relationships (two different fields) that relate account.invoice with account.move (or account.move.line). So I think the discussion is more about what Cédric mentions in his previous e-mail, in which he states that he doesn't want to bloat the model with all its possible relations. I personally prefer to be able to browse from one document to the other because there's no duplicate information (the bloat it's in the model/python only). For me, exceptions are partners or products to the rest of their documents, but I understand that others may have a different POV. > Making move - invoice a one2one would restrict you from being able to do > the above. You could only point from the payable/receivable move to the > invoice. -- Albert Cervera i Areny http://www.NaN-tic.com Tel: +34 93 553 18 03 http://twitter.com/albertnan http://www.nan-tic.com/blog -- tryton-dev@googlegroups.com mailing list
