If the graph view was left while a nvtooltip was shown (thanks to
keyboard shortcuts or during loading time), the nvtooltip remained
and was only destroyed when leaving the action.
Now they are automatically removed with the view as they are now
placed inside of them instead of inside the body element.
When there is a shipping address, this is the second select tag which
is used(defined in website_same_delivery/views/website_same_delivery.xml)
opw:693127
On an accounting journal, when checking "Dedicated refund sequence",
choosing the refund sequence is mandatory. This is the subject of the
below revision:
d94c449547
Since the refund sequence field was available only for with the debug
mode, the user was not forced to choose the sequence, while he must be.
This is not possible to use the dedicated refund sequence if you do not
choose it there.
opw-693955
The scenario when using the code view is the following :
- click on code view button to use code view
- make changes
- click on code view button to get back to wysiwyg view
- save from the wysiwyg view
If the 3rd step is not done:
- for the inline editor, we lose the changes that have been done in code
view,
- for the iframe editor, we lose the entirety of the content.
At one time the user was forced to go back to wysiwyg before being able
to save, but this have been removed hence the present usability issue.
With this fix, when the editor content is saved, if the user is in code
view he is automatically set back to wysiwyg view.
closes#14339
opw-693052
In 9.0 when the pos user was not at least in the group Accountant
(group_account_user), he was not allow to close or open the balance
when the pos session was configured in cash control.
ps:be carefull with the old rule: Point Of Sale Cashbox Line POS User
deleted with a26b805f5e
opw:69251
Some banks, like ING, create a line for free charges.
We just skip those lines as there's a 'non-zero' constraint
on the amount of account.bank.statement.line
The tests are running on consumable product, it means that there is no
resevation of quants and verification of reserved quants when you create
and assign moves. So the tests are not really usefull with consumable
products.
To make the tests efficients, we set the products as stockable. And we
use 'reserved_availability' instead of 'availability' in tests
'test_10_pickings_transfer_with_different_uom' and in
'test_00_picking_create_and_transfer_quantity' be cause the assert is
done after the move reservation.
In test 'test_00_picking_create_and_transfer_quantity' when we check the
move_lines state after the action assign, the first and last should be
only 'confirmed, because they are partially available. When product
were not stockable, all lines were assign, because there was no check of
the reserved quants.
In 'test_10_pickings_transfer_with_different_uom' we removed the call
'picking_out.action_confirm()' and 'picking_out.action_assign()',
because they already have been called before.
The price set for the non integrated carrier must be the same either when you
set it on the SO with button "set_price" or when you set it on the stock picking.
The field "carrier_price" must be in readonly when the state of the picking is done.
opw:691224
Hypothesis:
- We have a product 'pa' managed by lot.
- We don't create lots, when we receive products.
- We create lots when we deliver products.
- We don't have any units of product 'pa' in stock.
- We recieve 4 units of product 'pa' in one picking.
- We create a picking to deliver 3 products 'pa' (stock.move).
- We actually deliver 4 units of product 'pa' (1 in 'LOT1', 1 in 'LOT2' and 2 in 'LOT3').
- The problem also occurs when you just have 2 products in and 2 out in
different lots, but we based the example on the tests defined in
'test_stock_flow.py'
Thesis:
- We don't have anymore quants of product 'pa' in stock after delivering the 4 units
Problem:
- We actually have 3 quants of product 'pa' in stock, two having the 'lot_id' corresponding
to 'LOT3' and 'qty=-1', and one having no 'lot_id' and 'qty=2'.
Origin:
- This problem is caused by a bad condition in the function '_move_quants_by_lot' defined
in the model 'stock.move'.
Explanation:
When we reserve the 3 units of product 'pa' in the picking out, the quant in stock having
'qty=4' is splitted in 2 quants, one having 'qty=3' and a 'reservation_id' equals to the id
of the move in the picking out. And one with 'qty=1', having not reservation id.
So once the products are reserved, we will complete the pack operation present in the picking.
We will add 4 units of product 'pa' dispatched in Lot as 1 in 'LOT1', 1 in 'LOT2' and 2 in 'LOT3'
to the pack operation.
Then when we validate the picking, the quants with references to 'lot_id' must be created, and
then moved to the client.
Because we have set 4 units of the product 'pa' in the pack operation, an extra move of 1 unit of
product 'pa' is added to the picking to have a total of 4 untis of 'pa' moved to the customer
location.
When the function '_move_quants_by_lot' is called, it gets in parameter 'false_quants' which contains
the quant reserved by the first move, it means the quant in stock with the reservation_id to the first
move, and 'qty=3'.
The function, will now split this quant in 2 different quants:
- one with 'lot_id' corresponding to 'LOT1' and moved to customer location.
- one with no 'lot_id' staying in stock location still reserved to the first move.
Then, the function should reset the 'false_quants' with the quant containing the 2 last units reserved
in the quant from the last split in order to complete the next operation (create a quant with lot_id 'LOT2').
But the condition to find this new reserved quant contains (x.package_id.id != ops.package_id.id) where x is
a quant which is wrong, because when we don't manage package, x.package_id.id is 'False' and ops.package_id.id
is 'False' too. So it doesn't find the remaining quant.
So to fix it, we changed this part of the condition as the quant package_id should be equal to the pack operation
package_id (if no packages, False = False)
The partner of an account move is defined as a related on the partner of
the move lines. This kind of relation implies that the partner of the
account move is the partner of the first account move line. This is
arbitrary and doesn't make much sense.
Closes#14167
opw-693289
To have the right sign, amount = debit - credit
Before the fix:
-Create an invoice in another currency than the currency of your company
-Link the invoice lines to an analytic account.
-Validate the invoice.
Bug:
The analytic lines have a negative amount in the amount currency field
which was a bit stange as it is the opposite sign than the amount in the company currency.
opw:692557
When an asset is set as Prorata Temporis, with a one month period, the
first depreciation amount is computed on the basis of the remaining days
in the purchase year. This doesn't make sense for a monthly
depreciation.
This commit makes the distinction between a monthly and a yearly
depreciation. In the case of a monthly depreciation, the remaining days
in the purchase month are taken into account.
opw-690034
Backport of 0a3899b72c
The fiscal year start date should be taken into account when calculating
the depreciation amount in case of prorata temporis.
opw-678072
Backport of e69d9b8b7d
Steps to reproduce:
- Create a Sales Order with 2 product qty
- Keep Delivery Method as DHL International
- Confirm
- Open Delivery Order
- Edit Qty of the Delivery Order
- Change Carrier (any integrated)
- Validate the transfer
- Process the backorder
- Edit and change the Carrier to normal or free delivery charges
- Validate
Bug:
The price of the free delivery charges was not recomputed and kept
the carrier price set on the SO.
Fix:
When the price of the carrier is "fixed" or "base_on_rule", the price must
be reconsidered in case of change.
opw:691224
It can happen that the account moves generated during reconciliation
from a bank statement with several lines have the same number.
This is a complement of commit 9365482df0. The order of statement lines
is not derterministic since it is based on `statement_id desc,
sequence`. Therefore, at each call of `process_reconciliation`, the
array `self.statement_id.line_ids.ids` can be different.
opw-690853
The function open_entries doesn't have to propagate the context
because it propagated group_by from other models.
Example:
- Click on Accounting > Adviser > Assets
- Click on Group by > Category
- Click on an asset
- Click Entries
The group by "category_id" was propagated on the model "account.move"
and it led to a traceback.
opw:692888
The company currency is USD, the invoice currency is EUR.
- Create an invoice in EUR, set an invoice date
- Compute the taxes (click on "update" button)
- Change the exchange rate between EUR and USD
- Validate the invoice
At validation, the tax lines are not recomputed. Therefore, the tax
amounts, are still converted in the company currency using the old
rates. On the other hands, the other account move lines will have the
appropriate new rate.
Closes#14024
opw-692430
The company currency is USD, the invoice currency is EUR.
- Create an invoice in EUR, set an invoice date
- Compute the taxes (click on "update" button)
- Change the exchange rate between EUR and USD
- Validate the invoice
At validation, the tax amounts are not recomputed. Therefore, they are
still converted in the company currency using the old rate.
Closes#14024
opw-692430
The widget html is used for plain text and html content.
Need to check if the content is a valid html code, if is not wrap with p tag every lines.
opw-692158
In a multi-currency environment, company currency is USD
- Create an invoice of 100 EUR, corresponding to 65 USD
- Register a payment directly from the invoice (button "Register
Payment") of 60 USD. Choose "Mark invoice as fully paid".
- The write-off line contains the amount in the invoice currency (field
`amount_currency` filled in.
This was introduced in commit 003f2ee9b.
On the other hand:
- Create an invoice of 100 EUR, corresponding to 65 USD
- Create a bank statement of 60 USD.
- Proceed to reconciliation, and create a write-off line of 5 USD.
- In this case, the write-off line does not contain the amount in the
invoice currency.
The user expects the same behavior in both cases, so we introduce the
amount currency in the second case.
opw-690784
Certain localities (eg. Colombia, but South America in general) legally
require somewhat complex behavior when validating a POS order.
It was difficult to implement this behavior in the POS. The
validate_order function did way too much and was way too large. If a
user wanted to add an additional check that an order has to pass before
allowing validation the user would probably have to copy all the
validate_order code.
To solve these issues we split the functionality of validate_order into
two functions:
order_is_valid: returns true or false depending on the validity of the
order
finalize_validation: finalizes the order by sending it to the backend
etc.
Fixes#13142Closes#13994
Up to this commit, the JS module system only notified failed modules as
an 'information' instead of an 'error'. This was annoying, since the
runbot takes the result into account, and might be green even though a
module failed to load.
* Tip are never destroyed when change view mode
* unbind methods
* mail: memory leak with unbind methods
* web: memory leak because 'ui-autocomplete' is never destroyed
* web_editor: memory leak for wrong unbind on destroy
* web: memory leak: must remove fileupload handler
* bus: memory leak: correctly debind handlers on window in bus.Bus
* remove handlers on switch buttons and views $buttons
* remove handlers on breadcrumbs
* web: memory leak: correctly debind handlers
* im_odoo_support: memory leak: remove fileupload handler odoo_support
Note: part of this commit was actually authored by aab
Before, the quantities on the pack operations were set also for the
pack operations that should have lots and had not, which is an inconsistency.
As at the end of the PoS, errors are not shown and not rollbacked, this
created really nasty situations. With this code, it was never meant to
use lots in the PoS, but as the picking was not validated (but existed, because
not rollbacked) some people thought it as a wanted feature.
In the mean time, we had commit fafc048d02, but it will give
problems as it will not automatically create a backorder. It is
better not to do anything when lots are involved somewhere in the picking
as then the user will see the open pickings in the PoS Orders picking type.
It is also important to not do anything when it is a move without a picking.
Needs to be forward ported to saas-11, where the file structure changed.
opw: 692045
The tax has to be only on the second line because otherwise the accounting entry is not correct. Note that I'm not sure it is a usefull use case, but at least the accounting entry of the w/o is now logical and corresponds to what you expect (and what you see on screen). OPW 689806
Previous commit b6cbc36f9 hides volume, weight and standard price in the
product view if a product has variants. The use case was the following:
- Create a product (template)
- Give a value to these fields
- Add attributes to the product (this creates variants)
The values were reset to zero. This is a normal behavior since the
relevant values are now on the product (product).
This reverts commit b6cbc36f9a.
opw-692833
The POS attempts to auto-validate pickings and so it sets qty_done of
the pack operations to equal product_qty. In the case of a pack
operation about a tracked product this doesn't make much sense, as in
that case auto-validation will fail and serial/lot numbers have to be
manually specified by the user. Without this patch you end up with pack
operations that look like they're done, but still need to have
serial/lot numbers set.
opw-690516
This effectively reverts the patch 7bdd4de that was made on 8.0 then reverted by 001610e (in 8.0 too) but each of them manually forward ported to 9.0, except that the forward port of the last one forgot to remove the faulty commit.
When an asset is set as Prorata Temporis, with a one month period, the
first depreciation amount is computed on the basis of the remaining days
in the purchase year. This doesn't make sense for a monthly
depreciation.
This commit makes the distinction between a monthly and a yearly
depreciation. In the case of a monthly depreciation, the remaining days
in the purchase month are taken into account.
opw-690034
qsm-odoo