Before this commit:
It was complicated to manage the contracts as they were all displayed in
one view.
When the contract was a time credit one (which is by definition a temporary
situation) the data used was based on the time credit and not on the full time
equivalent. This usually forced the HR to create fake new contracts without
time credit for the appraisals.
After this commit:
A new report will ease the followup of contracts with the time running.
It comes with a new view that highlight the reference information which
allow to easily manage credit time. Simulation is also made on FTE data which
eases HR work.
This commit also fixes a bug in the simulation with the meal voucher (only one
was taken into account in the summary right panel.
The wage on signature is now populated when the document is signed.
Closesodoo/odoo#58120
Related PR: odoo/enterprise#13384, odoo/upgrade#1802
task-2326407
Signed-off-by: Yannick Tivisse (yti) <yti@odoo.com>
Purpose
=======
Having some usability check to be sure to make the pay
for everyone, and don't loose contracts.
We would like to remove incoming and to renew columns in
hr.contract and replace them by a kanban state. In employee, we would
like to add warning on the kanban to warn the hr responsible there
is no contract or a contract is about to expire
Specification
=============
hr.contract kanban:
- add a kanabn state
- it becomes red automatically when the contract is in running and expire in 7 days
- add aquick search in filter to filter on expered soon
- the kanban state can be changed manaually (in case of there is several rh)
- sort by contract end date set first (more close of today first)
Employee kanban
- add an red icon if there is no contract in Runnig status OR there is a
kanban state red in their contract (whatever the status).
- add a quick seaach on employee with warning
- State pending + green = incoming
- State confirmed + red = about to expire / to renew
closesodoo/odoo#33489
Signed-off-by: Yannick Tivisse (yti) <yti@odoo.com>
1/ Remove the parent-children relation on salary structures
Currently it is difficult to see what rules are applied on salary structures.
Most of the structures are inheriting 3 rules (Basic, Gross, Net) from the
'Base for new structures', and those rules are not shown. Same issue if a
structure has another one as parent (as in the French localization).
This bring more annoying issues:
- Since the saas-12.1, we can already set different accounts for different
companies on the salary rules for which we want to post journal entries.
But for the parent rules, like the 'NET' amount, it's impossible to post
the journal entries on different account for different salary structures.
(eg: for CP200 employees and CP200 workers). As the rules are following
a M2M relation on the structure, we have to remove the parent_id and to
recreate all the rules in the final structure.
- If we are not at ease with the M2M relation (which is the case for most
of the end users), we will simply modify the rule on the parent structure.
This was already done on the French localization on which we modified the
code, sequence and the name. This could have some desastrous consequences
as this will break the order on which the rules are computed for other
structures for the sequence, or break other integration with the payroll
as we also modify the code, for example the salary configurator.
As this parent-children relation on structure could cause several issues
difficult to spot and as this is quite difficult to correctly visualize the
structure composition, it is better to remove it and define all the rules
inside the structure itself. This improves also the code readability as we
are not trying to recursively retrieve the rules and find a proper sequence
inside them.
2/ Make the rules on the salary structure a o2m instead of a m2m
The issues described just above indicates that it would be better to remove
the M2M relation between salary structures and salary rules, and make it
a O2M relation instead. That way, no more confusion and misconfiguration of
the rules fields (code, sequence, accounts, ...).
3/ Remove the parent-children relation on rules
A salary rule can have a parent salary rule. This mechanism, which is
not obvious at all for an end user allows to specify a parent rules.
If the condition is met for the parent rule (eg: the employee has at least
1 child), all the children rules could be applied (eg: Deduction of 90 euros
if the number of children is between 1 and 1).
Visually it doesn't make a lot of sense, as it displays one line with an
amount of 0 for the parent, and one line with the real amount for each
applied child. On the other hand, no child rule is linked to the structure
and an end user has to click on the parent rule, to see the children and
understand that something mystic and hidden is existing.
This is equivalent to define as many classic rules as we have children, or
even better, define 1 rule that will compute the real amount directly,
as the number of children can be accessed from the localdict when computing
the salary line.
This commit also removed the relation.
4/ Clean some brols in the code (technical)
The 3 first points of the spec allow us to clean a little the code readability
and complexity.
5/ Adapt all the localizations for these changes
All the localizations are impacted by those changes. What is done in this commit
is mainly:
- l10n_be_hr_payroll: Make 3 separated files for the 3 existing structures (the
fourth one, belgian worker, is not correct and is removed). For each
structure, define explicitely the rules (in the correct order by sequence).
This multiplies the total number of rules as some of them were shared (like
the withholding tax rule for example), but all the code that is supposed to be
modified each year/quarter/whenever the government decides to modify the law
has been moved into a python file, and is available the computation context.
This will also allow us to update the computation rules without having to
update the module.
- l10n_fr_hr_payroll: There were 3 rules following this scheme:
Base for new structure
|
Basic structure
|
----------------------
| |
Cadre Non-Cadre
All the rules parent rules have been duplicated into the 2 remaining
structures, cadre and non-cadre. There were a lot of parent-children relations
between the rules that have been adapted to the new model.
- l10n_in_hr_payroll: There was a lot of rules in data, and a structure in demo
data, which was using 4 or 5 of these rules. As the rules doesn't seem to make
a lot of sense altogether, everything was moved in demo data.
6/ Introduce a new Salary Structure Type model
Currently we have a model hr.contract.type with a M2O on the contracts. This has
never been used in 9 years and is removed in this commit. On the other hand, we
would like to define a new model hr.payroll.structure.type (eg: CP200 Employee),
which will line all the salary structures the Belgian localization could bring
(Classic salary, double holidays, 13th month, ...). This field is defined on the
structure, and is displayed on the contract (as the same place than the contract
type we just removed).
On this model we could also define some fields like:
- The default pay period: Selection field, default = monthly. This is applied on
the contract when selecting the structure.
- The Working Schedule, m2o. This is applied on the contract when selecting the
structure
For example, on the 'commission paritaire' for teachers, we could set the
default pay period to 'Every 15 days' and the working schedule to '19 hours /
week'. Every contract under this structure would take those values.
Migration
=========
For a migration point of view:
- All the rules that had a parent_rule_id should be set to
appears_on_payslip=False. The column parent_rule_id can be dropped afterward.
- All the rules that are coming from a parent structure or higher should be
duplicated and the field 'struct_id' should be set on the current structure.
The column parent_id can be dropped afterward.
- All the rules that were defined on the structure should have the field
'struct_id' defined on them.
- The rules that are not linked to a structure should be unlinked.
- The column type_id on the contract could be dropped, no need to keep the
values too.
- A default structure type is defined in data ('Employee'). This could be set to
all the existing structure for the newly created 'type_id' field.
TaskID: 1942832
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
Thibault Libioulle