BTW, the original fix from trunk came from bug 731035, which I'm not sure was correctly addressed, we may need to reconsider it.
Probably it makes sense to allow multiple UoM with the same factor but different names. For example 1 PCE could be the same thing as 1 ROLL, but customers may prefer to refer to 1 ROLL for some products. So perhaps instead of enforcing uniqueness of factor, we should just ensure uniqueness of names, and fix the report, as suggested by Graeme on bug 731035. For example it is perfectly valid to have no reference unit explicitly defined (it is implicit because all UoM factors are expressed against it, but it does not need to be an actual UoM entry in the system.), and I'm not sure the report mentioned in bug 731035 covers this case either. I think I'm going to reopen bug 731035 and we should consider carefully how to solve both issues cleanly. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-dev/openobject-addons/6.0-bug-734686-ado/+merge/62442 Your team OpenERP R&D Team is subscribed to branch lp:~openerp-dev/openobject-addons/6.0-bug-734686-ado. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-dev-web Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-dev-web More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
