On 29.07.2013 13:49, LAG Robin Baumgartner wrote: > On 23.07.2013 12:40, LAG Robin Baumgartner wrote: >> On 01.07.2013 09:59, LAG Robin Baumgartner wrote: >>> On 04.06.2013 10:36, Cédric Krier wrote: >>>> On 01/06/13 02:07 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: >>>>> There's something in the workflow of opportunities that I think >>>>> could be improved. I don't think that the end of the workflow >>>>> should create a sale. The reason is that most probably, during >>>>> the sale process several quotations will already have been sent >>>>> to the party. >>>>> >>>>> I think that it would be more interesting to add a Many2One >>>>> field in sale.sale that refers to the opportunity to which the >>>>> sale is linked. Maybe the sale should only be created if no >>>>> previous quotations have been created and there are products >>>>> assigned to the opportunity. >>>> >>>> So let's keep the current workflow (create a sale on convertion) >>>> but just reverse the link between sale and opportunity. Like that >>>> the module is more flexible to be customized: >>>> >>>> - allow to create many sales from an opportunity (for people who >>>> don't like the idea of revision). >>>> - can split the generated sale using copy (link to opportunity >>>> will stay). >>>> - can use the future revision of sale (and use copy for split). >>>> - can add later new sales to an existing "converted" opportunity. >>>> >>>> PS: I would just prevent to delete the last sale of an >>>> opportunity. >>> >>> These are some nice proposals. As far as I can see, there is nobody >>> working on it yet, right? >>> >>> Since we'd like to get more involved with the community and we happen >>> to have a customer with these exact requirements, I'd like to take >>> over this task. >>> >>> FYI: I'm on holiday for the next weeks, so don't expect a code review >>> before Juli 22nd. >>> >> >> Corresponding feature request: https://bugs.tryton.org/issue3320 > > I would appreciate some more feedback on this proposal, especially from > the participants of the discussion. Does it reflect the ideas you had in > mind?
There has been quite a lot of feedback, but no conclusion could be reached on various topics. Neithertheless I updated the codereview to reflect the latest changes in trunk, especially the usage python-sql. I'd like to ask for some voluteers to test and review the change. There have been some improvements and, with some time passed by, maybe some things appear in a different light now. It probably wont make it into 3.0, but some new feedback would hopefully reanimate the discussion. Related codereviews: * http://codereview.tryton.org/992003/ * http://codereview.tryton.org/994002/
