El 12/02/18 a les 10:30, Cédric Krier ha escrit:
> On 2018-02-12 10:03, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote:
>>> If we want to use this feature, yes the fs_values must reflect the sum
>>> of what was written by the module.
>> I'm not sure if it's worth to implement it. Let me explain: Currently we
>> are forced to update a record definition of the same module because the
>> new kind is not defined on the same module but on another one. The
>> problem is that account_es doest not depend on account_deposit and we
>> don't want to add the dependency. Normally this is fixed by adding the
>> code on a third module that depends on both modules.
> I think there are use cases where it will be useful just like the
> "depends" attribute on record because it increases the modularity.
> Indeed I think we could extend the "depends" to the "field" tag and have
> something like this:
> <field name="kind">other</field>
> <field name="kind" depends="account_deposit">deposit</field>
> The parser should use the latest value matching the condition.
Ok I see your point and I agree that this will improve the modularity of
the system. JFR, I've created an issue to implement it:
And also updated the spanish chart of accounts to use it:
Sergi Almacellas Abellana
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To view this discussion on the web visit