[16.0][IMP] contract: Improve recurring invoice offset handling and resolve issue 1220 #1221
Conversation
mktsrl
force-pushed
the
16.0-fix-contract-recurring_invoicing_offset
branch
from
2946fa4 to
dc7bdd0
Compare
mktsrl
changed the title
mktsrl
force-pushed
the
16.0-fix-contract-recurring_invoicing_offset
branch
10 times, most recently
from
f2b8adc to
e87422f
Compare
mktsrl
force-pushed
the
16.0-fix-contract-recurring_invoicing_offset
branch
from
e87422f to
4bf798e
Compare
|
@mktsrl Thanks for this. Could you improve your commit message by making module appear like |
| @api.onchange( | ||
| "recurring_invoicing_offset", | ||
| ) | ||
| def onchange_recurring_invoicing_offset(self): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not putting field in compute method's depends ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The onchange was added primarily to fix the UI issue (Point 3 in the original issue description) where the recurring_next_date wasn't updating immediately when the offset changed. It just calls the compute method to provide that instant feedback.
You're right that adding the offset to depends is generally best practice for ensuring the compute runs on save. We did explore this, but noticed it caused unexpected failures in several existing core tests related to date calculations.
To keep this PR focused on fixing the reported offset issues without needing to refactor unrelated tests, we decided the onchange sufficiently addressed the user-facing problem for now.
| @@ -517,10 +520,208 @@ def test_check_date_end(self): | |||
| self.acct_line.date_end = "2015-12-31" | |||
|
|
|||
| def test_check_recurring_next_date_start_date(self): | |||
| with self.assertRaises(ValidationError): | |||
| self.acct_line.write( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is that normal that somenthing that should fail do not anymore?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, the change in test_check_recurring_next_date_start_date is indeed expected.
This test previously failed because the validation was overly strict, blocking valid negative offsets even on new contracts (as noted in the original issue, point 2). The fix relaxes this by checking for posted invoices before raising the error.
Since this specific test runs without posted invoices, it correctly passes now with the new logic. The scenario where the error should occur (with posted invoices) is covered by the 2 new test_constraint_..._with_posted_invoice tests added in this PR.
|
This PR has the |
mktsrl
force-pushed
the
16.0-fix-contract-recurring_invoicing_offset
branch
from
4bf798e to
4e7de27
Compare
- Made recurring_invoicing_offset editable (store=True, readonly=False). - Relaxed date validation constraints (_check_last_date_invoiced, _check_recurring_next_date_start_date) to trigger only when posted invoices exist, allowing negative offsets on new contracts. - Added onchange on recurring_invoicing_offset for dynamic UI update of recurring_next_date. - Removed #INVOICEMONTHNAME# marker processing. - Added/updated unit tests for new validation logic. - Ensured recurring_invoicing_offset is in compute depends. Fixes #numero_tua_issue
mktsrl
force-pushed
the
16.0-fix-contract-recurring_invoicing_offset
branch
from
4e7de27 to
5c743ae
Compare
mktsrl
changed the title
Fixes #1220