[ADD] tms #130
[ADD] tms #130
Conversation
| raise ValidationError(_("You must create an TMS order stage first.")) | ||
|
|
||
| @api.onchange("route") | ||
| def _onchange_route(self): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To adopt current Odoo approach, change these onchanges to computed stored readonly=False fields instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you send an example please?
What i'm trying to do is to empty the "route_id" field when I de-select the "route" boolean.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that flow is supported.
tms/models/res_partner.py
Outdated
| latitude = fields.Float() | ||
| longitude = fields.Float() |
tms/models/tms_vehicle.py
Outdated
| stage = fields.Char(related="stage_id.name") | ||
|
|
||
| # Relations | ||
| company_id = fields.Many2one("res.company", string="Company", default="") |
tms/models/tms_vehicle.py
Outdated
| driver_id = fields.Many2one("res.partner") | ||
|
|
||
| # Types | ||
| type = fields.Selection(selection=VEHICLE_TYPES) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this deserves a m2o instead of a selection
and rename to vehicule_type_id as type is a python class
|
Please remove the merge commits in the commit history. |
| sequence = fields.Integer(default=10) | ||
|
|
||
| route = fields.Boolean(string="Use predefined route") | ||
| route_id = fields.Many2one("tms.route") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| route_id = fields.Many2one("tms.route") | |
| route_id = fields.Many2one("tms.route", compute="_compute_route_id", store=True, readonly=False) | |
| @api.depends("route") | |
| def _compute_route_id(self): | |
| for order in self: | |
| if not order.route_id and order.route_id: | |
| order.route_id = False |
tms/models/tms_order.py
Outdated
| date_start = fields.Datetime(readonly=True) | ||
| date_end = fields.Datetime(readonly=True) | ||
| duration = fields.Float(readonly=True, string="Trip Duration") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how would these fields be handled in case maintenance is needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@marcelsavegnago If maintenance of the vehicle is needed, you would not be able to schedule a trip with that vehicle...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm referring to data maintenance. From what I understand, the start and end of the trip are recorded when the 'Start' and 'End' buttons are clicked. Therefore, if someone doesn't click 'Start' or 'Finish', we would need to change the recorded values.
|
@max3903 @rousseldenis @marcelsavegnago with the https://github.com/akretion/xsdata-odoo tool I presented at the OCA days 2021, you could quite easily generate all the Odoo data model for the UBL transport management entities: Aside from having a universally accepted and standard data model, it would also make it a piece of cake to have import and export of UBL XML documents for it... Wouldn't that be preferable over bootstrapping a custom data model from scratch where all messaging mapping would need to be made and maintained manually? Again, for reference here is the kind of Abstract Odoo mixins it generates from xsd schemas, here for the Brazilian Electronic Invoicing (the most complex in the world): For UBL, I may need to do small adaptations to xsdata-odoo to properly map the UBL intermediaries simple types to proper Odoo field types (I already started, it's not a lot of work.). Disclaimer: may be the UBL Transport entities are not adapted to what you are trying to manage, but I believe it's pretty close to what @marcelsavegnago is dealing with for the Brazilian CT-e electronic documents. In this case, @marcelsavegnago is actually already using this datamodel generated by xsdata-odoo for the xsd CT-e Brazilian fiscal model https://github.com/OCA/l10n-brazil/tree/14.0/l10n_br_cte_spec/models/v4_0 What do you guys think? (I'm also available for hire if you need a few days of work to make it work with that UBL schema properly) |
|
@max3903 you must use the ocabot command instead of manually merging branches. There's no approval from the reviewers here either. Please refrain from merging without these conditions. |
|
@max3903 I agree with @pedrobaeza. This is a little bit cavalier... |
|
@OCA/logistics-maintainers |
|
IMHO, some reviews comments should have been attended.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, there's no approval, there's a blocking review... This should not have been merged, especially since the PR is not stale. You were not waiting for reviewers feedback since weeks. Even if this module is alpha.
Now, if this is a way to speed up the work on all the other related PRs and to reduce the effort here, I understand your hurry but you should at least mention how you intend to follow up from here (you could have added TODOs in the code or add a roadmap for instance).
Also changes to dotfiles were committed together w/ module's changes which will cause conflicts when porting the 1st commit to other branches... 🙈
As this is the only module available in 17.0 and there's no pending PR if not yours and nobody is using this yet, we could even rewrite the history of this branch.
My $0.02
| from odoo.tests.common import TransactionCase | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class TestFleetVehicle(TransactionCase): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should use BaseCase everywhere when tracking is not needed.
setUp code should be moved to setUpClass unless is really needed to run something before every test runs.
Agree with that |
|
@OCA/core-maintainers Could we reset the 17.0 branch ? @max3903 Could you do after that a better PR? Even if it is Alpha, some conventions should be respected at least. Many thanks |
|
Hello, Sorry for the late answer, I was on vacation during the last 2 weeks. @EdgarRetes will take care of the requested changes. I would like to get this merged prior to OCA Days to present it and to start migration to version 18.0 while in Belgium. |
Ok, with that, but not at any price. Please respect OCA flows and requirements. @simahawk Could you restore 17.0 branch? @max3903 This will need a new PR for tms module. I can help with review before OCA days. |
|
Here's a clean 17.0 branch reset to the commit before the module was introduced https://github.com/OCA/stock-logistics-transport/tree/17.0 Here's a backup of the 17.0 before the reset because translations have been added... in case you want to cherry-pick them https://github.com/OCA/stock-logistics-transport/commits/17.0-tms-backup/ Let me know when is not needed anymore and I'll delete it. |
thanks! @EdgarRetes Could you recreate the PR from your |
Done! #145 |
#127