A Dilluns 03 Juny 2013 16:58:34, Sergi Almacellas Abellana va escriure: > Al 03/06/13 16:33, En/na Albert Cervera i Areny ha escrit: > > A Diumenge 02 Juny 2013 03:54:45, Sharoon Thomas va escriure: > >> On Sun 02 Jun 20 01:41, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > >>> By the way, it is even possible, with at least one of our > >>> customers that > >>> > >>> their customer confirms two of the quotations sent because they > >>> decide > >>> > >>> to purchase the big one and the small one (although the > >>> customer only > >>> > >>> asked for one at the beginning). > >> > >> We get similar requests from customers too and the way we thought > >> of > >> > >> solving the problem was with an extention to sale_opportunity > >> probably > >> > >> called sale_opportunity_quote. > > I agree that this is need to be done as extension as this workflow is > enough for some use cases. > > >> This should create a one2many relationship from sale.opportunity > >> to > >> > >> sale.sale, and each different proposal (quote) you give the > >> customer > >> > >> can be there. This applies only where you would be proposing a > >> big > >> > >> truck and a small truck (while you use your original simpler > >> workflow > >> > >> where you will only revise the same sale at quote state). > >> > >> > >> > >> With the module installed, when a customer finally confirms one > >> or more > >> > >> quotations, use a wizard to choose the ones to confirm (and other > >> sales > >> > >> are moved to cancelled) and the opportunity is marked as won. If > >> all > >> > >> sales are cancelled, then the opportunity is lost. > > > > This workflow better matches what I'd expect. My concern is that > > with this workflow you're changing the semantics and lifespan of > > the opportunity. Note that currently opportunities don't have the > > "won" state. There's only the "converted" one. > > I suspect that "won" == "converted", so that makes sense for me.
No. It currently is not the case because "converted" means "we created the quotation" which has nothing to do with "won". > > > Also you're making last longer > > > (that's what I expect from the opportunity) because you keep it > > until lost or won. > > Thats the expected behaviour of a lead. That's not the current behaviour. > > I think it is better that it lasts longer because then, the > > opportunity would be the place to add more information such as > > conversations with the customer regarding the opportunity. > > IMHO conversations must be added in diferents levels: > > - In the lead: All the conversations related to this lead. > - In the sale: All the conversations related to this sale. > - In the party form: All the conversation related to this party. > That's basically all de conversations of the lead, and all the > conversations for all the sales this party has, and all conversations > related to any other modules. For me, the opportunity is the right place for that information. > Is the tryton framework able to group information from diferent > modules in the same treeview? -- Albert Cervera i Areny Consultor funcional Tel. 93 553 18 03 @albertnan www.NaN-tic.com Avís legal >>
