When creating assets from invoice lines, the system must check
that assets have not already been created for the related invoice.
If assets already exist then these assets have to be removed.
Used case:
- In the purchase journal, tick "allow canceling entries"
- On a supplier invoice line, set an asset category
- validate the invoice
- cancel the invoice
- set to draft
- validate the invoice
Before the fix: the asset was created twice.
After the fix: A warning is raised if an asset already exists for the invoice.
opw:674674
Forward-port of saas-6 77dae4c9c5.
Chrome 50 treats percent-height divs inside of auto-height cells as
auto [1]. So from now on it's important that an explicit 'height: 100%' CSS
property is set on parent tds, otherwise you'll end up with elements
with a height of 0.
An extra difficulty is that this new height property on
subwindow-container will result in the element being as high as his
parent table. So the collapsed trick doesn't work anymore in the
customer list.
This has to be done conditionally. The proposed workaround of adding
100% height to parents of affected elements causes issues in IE/Edge
because the effect of adding a height in percent to a table-{cell,row}
element is not defined by CSS [2].
[1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/8876584335b48c99cf8df552ef4d8efebb131041
[2] http://stackoverflow.com/a/27384730
Forward-port of v8 9fa53b7ee7.
Chrome 50 treats percent-height divs inside of auto-height cells as
auto [1]. So from now on it's important that an explicit 'height: 100%' CSS
property is set on parent tds, otherwise you'll end up with elements
with a height of 0.
An extra difficulty is that this new height property on
subwindow-container will result in the element being as high as his
parent table. So the collapsed trick doesn't work anymore in the
customer list.
This has to be done conditionally. The proposed workaround of adding
100% height to parents of affected elements causes issues in IE/Edge
because the effect of adding a height in percent to a table-{cell,row}
element is not defined by CSS [2].
DO NOT FORWARD-PORT!
[1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/8876584335b48c99cf8df552ef4d8efebb131041
[2] http://stackoverflow.com/a/27384730
Chrome 50 treats percent-height divs inside of auto-height cells as
auto [1]. So from now on it's important that an explicit 'height: 100%' CSS
property is set on parent tds, otherwise you'll end up with elements
with a height of 0.
An extra difficulty is that this new height property on
subwindow-container will result in the element being as high as his
parent table. So the collapsed trick doesn't work anymore in the
customer list.
This has to be done conditionally. The proposed workaround of adding
100% height to parents of affected elements causes issues in IE/Edge
because the effect of adding a height in percent to a table-{cell,row}
element is not defined by CSS [2].
DO NOT FORWARD-PORT!
[1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/8876584335b48c99cf8df552ef4d8efebb131041
[2] http://stackoverflow.com/a/27384730
When canceling and clicking on "reset to draft" button a PO with
invoicing method = Based on generated draft invoice, the purchase
workflow led to a shipping exception.
To be in state done the PO must have:
All its PO lines invoiced with _set_po_lines_invoiced
All its incoming shipments done with test_moves_done
opw:673561
Provide the possibility for the taxes
label on invoices to be translated.
In other words,
to give the possibility for the taxes labels
in the invoice report to be translated in the invoice
lines
(e.g. 21% VAT in English, 21% BTW in Dutch,
in the invoice lines)
opw-675038
The tax description in the taxes lines
(e.g. in invoices) is supposed
to be translated in the customer/supplier language,
as this is what is displayed in the printed reports
sent to the customer.
This is the behavior in place in Odoo 7.0 & 8.0.
(e.g. in invoices)
opw-675038
The assets_frontend inheritance made by the web_editor module should be
the first to be done as the website.assets_frontend rules have to come
after (LESS variables overridden).
The "Due Date" is invisible in the tree view because in most cases, the
`journal_type` is not in the context. Since it was shown all the time in
v8, we show as well.
opw-674815
When an invoice is cancelled, the attachments (including the printed
invoice) are not deleted. If the users resets the invoice to draft,
modify it, then print it again, the previously generated document will
be used instead.
opw-674678
The `account.voucher` field `date` was twice in the view
`view_purchase_receipt_form`
Besides the fact the field was twice in the view,
this prevented to set a date in the past
for the resulting journal entries,
as the second field `date` input of the view
contained the date of today, while
only the first one was visible and editable
by the user, and it was the second field
value which was took into account when
passing the form values to the server,
most-likely because this second field was set
further in the view.
opw-674712
The method `create_exchange_rate_entry` is called
either if one of the two parameter
`amount_diff` or `diff_in_currency` is not equal to 0.0
(or, near to zero, `float_is_zero`):
```
if currency and aml_to_balance \
and (float_is_zero(total_amount_currency, precision_rounding=currency.rounding) \
or float_compare(total_debit, total_credit, precision_rounding=currency.rounding) == 0):
```
Nevertheless, the method is called with the amounts not rounded,
and, therefore, one could be considered to 0.0 (if
closed to 0.0) but not be exactly equal to 0.00,
and it should therefore be rounded before the entries
creation.
opw-673854
In non grouped mode, a recent fix (fixing race condition in do_search)
introduced a new bug, the dataset size is not correctly set.
This is a quick and dirty fix, I believe that changing the dataset
internals like this commit (and other) do is really not correct.
However, the correct fix (working on the dataset API) is more dangerous
in a stable release.
Catching and hiding database transactional errors can
sometimes cause a POS order to be entirely lost.
When it occurs, the transaction won't be committed
into the database, and if there is only one order
in the batch, the server won't return any error to
the frontend POS which will consider the order saved.
This is very unlikely to be exploitable because the
alt-field usually comes from master data (e.g. product
names) that can't be injected.
Courtesy of Naglis Jonaitis
When creating an invoice from a contract with button "create invoices",
the description linked to the contract has to written in the comment field
of the invoice.
opw:671660
This commit protects tags having an alt attribute containing an @. Like
cite on blockquote, alt on image for example could contain an @. Do not
escape it as it could break images.
Rounding the unit price at that moment is a bad idea. Here is the use
case:
- Set the product 'Costing Method' to 'Real Price'
- Set the product 'Inventory Valuation' to 'Perpetual'
- Receive through a PO 9 products for a unit price of 115.80
- Receive through a PO 35 products for a unit price of 116.80
- Sell these 44 products thanks to a SO, generate and validate the
invoice
On the Stock Output Account, the following entries will be generated:
- First PO --> 1042.20 = 9 * 115.80
- Second PO --> 4088.00 = 35 * 116.80
- Invoice --> 5130.22 = 44 * 116.596
116.596 is the average price of the two POs, but rounded. The issue is
that there are 2 cents of difference... Nice ;-)
The fix is to avoid the rounding of the unit price, since we don't even
store it on the account move line anyway.
opw-673976
Christophe Simonis