banking-addons-drivers team mailing list archive

[alexis <alexis@xxxxxxxxxx>]

By the way, I just discovered that the object that stores the XML file 
(banking.export.sepa and banking.export.sdd) do NOT have a field 
company_id + an ir.rule, so it is a real problem in a multi-company 
setup. With the current code base in multi-company setup, there is even 
a crash in 
account_banking_sepa_credit_transfer/models/account_banking_sepa.py line 
36 when you have 2 banking.export.sepa in 2 different companies 
(self.payment_order_ids is null because the payment orders are in a 
different company, so it crashes on self.payment_order_ids[0]).

So that's another reason why we really need to move to attachements.

Alexis

Le 2014-12-17 10:45, Alexis de Lattre a écrit :
> Dear banking addons community friends,
>
> During a review of the PR https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment/pull/76,
> we started a discussion about the necessity of the models
> "banking.export.sdd" (in account_banking_sepa_direct_debit) and
> "banking.export.sepa" (in account_banking_sepa_credit_transfer) and
> other such models that store the file for the bank that is generated
> by the module. An alternative would be to use an attachement on the
> payment.order model to store the file for the bank. The advantage for
> using attachements:
> 1) it avoids a lot of code
> 2) when the user is on the form view of a payment order, we can
> immediately see if there is an attachement or not, and then he can
> access it without problems (with the current solution, he has to click
> on "More > SEPA Credit Transfer files" to see if there is a file
> attached or not)
>
> Maybe the current solution has some advantages, but I don't know 
> them...
>
> When I initially developped the SEPA modules, I created the models
> banking.export.sdd and banking.export.sepa only because I followed the
> implementation of the existing modules of the banking addons (I
> remember I was already quite surprised of this implementation compared
> to using attachements)
>
> Pedro and Stéphane also support moving to attachements. Stefan, what
> is your opinion on this ?
>
> Of course, updating the code to use attachements is easy... but
> writing the migration script is less easy ! :)
>
> P.S. : If we decide to move to attachements, a possibility would be to
> have an object "payment.order.file" that has "_inherits =
> {'ir.attachment': 'attachment_id'}", like in the module
> base_delivery_carrier_label :
> https://github.com/OCA/carrier-delivery/blob/8.0/__unported__/base_delivery_carrier_label/stock.py#L437
> Such an implementation would have 2 advantages:
> 1) we can search on "payment.order.file" and we are sure to get bank
> files (because, if we search on ir.attachements, we may have some
> attachements that have been manually added by the user to the payment
> order and have nothing to do with a bank file).
> 2) we can add some fields on payment.order.file without "polluting"
> the model ir.attachements
>
> Regards,
>
> Alexis