On 05/12/11 15:50 +0100, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > No, One2One has a different representation at the database level. > > I think it is really right to have a Many2One on the invoice because it > > is the invoice who create the move. > > It will never be the move that creates the invoice but with a One2One > > field it is what it "allow". > > Ok. I understand that the db representation is different and that most > invoices > will have a account move and many account moves will not have an invoice. At > the same time, from my POV, those field types represent how data is > connected, > not how it is created. We're talking about data structures not processes. > > I mean, if we have a One2One field type that we think it should not be used > when there's a one-to-one relationship, when should we use it? IMHO it has > perfect sense in this case...
We don't want to bloat the account.move nor account.move.line with tons of fields that represents from where they were generated. Because once you start with the invoice, you should do the same for stock.move, account.statement and all the coming one (like pos, amortization etc.) -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpL7YsswUvV8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
