Purpose
=======
We would like to be able to manage multi contracts payslips and contract transitions.
Specification
=============
General flow:
1/ Benefits are generated based on contracts's calendar.
2/ When validating additionnal benefits, calendar.attendances are created in the contract's calendar
3/ Create one payslip per contract in state [open|pending|close]
4/ For each payslip, generate worked day lines based on the contract's calendar
New Constraints:
1/ An employee cannot have more than one contract at the same time (excluding draft, closed and cancelled contracts).
2/ A leave cannot overlap multiple contracts.
3/ A contract cannot have starting and ending dates such that a leave become in the middle of
two contacts.
New state for a contract: Incoming. It means it's ready and will be running soon.
An incoming contract automatically becomes 'Running' if the start date is passed (cron)
Number of hours and days are always correct (according to the contract's calendar) on payslips as the
flow starts from the contract's calendar.
However, it is not correct in the Time Off app because it's counted based on the employee's calendar.
The number of days/hours for hr.leaves should be computed according to
the contract at the time of the leave.
e.g. If I currently work full time and I request 2 weeks off next month where I'll be working only
3 days/week and 5hours/day (other contract), It should count 6 days and 30 hours.
- in hr.benefits form view show the contract (below employee field)
TaskID: 1903483
closesodoo/odoo#30181
Purpose of this commit is to remove the link between Hr Contracts and
base automation. This has two consequences
* automated actions used to compute contracts state are transformed
into scheduled actions. Crons will do the job just as fine;
* option to use employee contract in automated actions is removed
and put in its own bridge module;
This allows to remove the dependency between the two addons.
First step towards cleaning and improving automated actions is to
correctly name things. base_action_rule module is therefore renamed
to base_automation. Model is also renamed to base.automation.
Main idea of this commit is to simplify the various options of
ir.actions.server model. Purpose is to make it a simple tool to
execute some actions or python code. This has two main consequences
* create and update server actions are simplified to update only the
current record. Complex options can always be achieved by python code
instead of error-prone option building mechanism;
* condition of server actions is removed. If a condition is necessary it
can either be included in a code server action, or integrated in an
automated action;
This commit features :
* remove 'client_action' server action type. Indeed this can be achieved
with a code server action returning an action;
* remove 'condition' on ir_actions_server model. From now on conditions
and triggers are managed in server action code or using automated
or scheduled action;
* clean 'create and copy a record'. Create and link are the proposed
options. Copy of the record or of a selected record is removed. Link
is simplified by removing the parsed expression that allowed complex
path update. It is simpler to write code than write python-like
expression in char fields;
* remove 'use_write' options. It now simply updates a record;
* remove 'write_expression' as it is replaced by code actions;
* remove 'ref_object' not used anymore with the removal of "choose
a record";
* remove helper to build an expression not used anymore with the removal
of "write expression";
* remove object ID finder;
* removed template display when choosing an email template; just go
on the template if you want more details;
* refactor server action form view to reflect changes. It will be used
in future commits as base view for automated and scheduled actions;
* add 'sequence' in list view;
* add new 'usage' selection field allowing to distinguish which model
uses the server action. Indeed as server action will soon be used
in scheduled or automated actions having a clue about the usage
is always helpful;
Thanks to @fpodoo for the original idea and preliminary work. Thanks to
@jpr-odoo for first developments. Thanks to @jem-odoo and @rco-odoo
for reviewing.
Lucas Lefèvre