[16.0][MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain #204

sbejaoui · 2023-09-21T13:21:02Z

Updated by "Update PO files to match POT (msgmerge)" hook in Weblate. Translation: l10n-belgium-13.0/l10n-belgium-13.0-l10n_be_iso20022_pain Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/l10n-belgium-13-0/l10n-belgium-13-0-l10n_be_iso20022_pain/

rousseldenis · 2023-09-22T09:37:44Z

l10n_be_iso20022_pain/models/account_move.py

@@ -25,7 +25,8 @@ class AccountMove(models.Model):
    _inherit = "account.move"

    reference_type = fields.Selection(
-        selection_add=[("bba", "BBA Structured Communication")]
+        selection_add=[("bba", "BBA Structured Communication")],


@sbejaoui Is this still needed following this:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ec5f6003f8f6f8de16c6c8b2b023a0511a55d498/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L2605

And this:

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/ec5f6003f8f6f8de16c6c8b2b023a0511a55d498/addons/l10n_be/models/account_move.py#L20C9-L20C42

Yes, in the previous versions, _get_invoice_reference_be_partner was located in l10n_be_invoice_bba, but now it has been merged into l10n_be. This method provides a default BBA-formatted reference.

l10n_be_iso20022_pain add a new reference type bba to ensure that the reference (whether generated or edited by the user) complies with the valid BBA format.

I don't think we should add a reference_type. If reference_type is structured and journal_id.invoice_reference_model is be it means we have a bba structured communication.

Correct,

I believe we should keep only the check for the ref in this module.

cc @ThomasBinsfeld

luc-demeyer · 2023-12-07T16:57:11Z

l10n_be_iso20022_pain/models/account_move.py

+    _inherit = "account.move"
+
+    reference_type = fields.Selection(
+        selection_add=[("bba", "BBA Structured Communication")],


"bba" in payment order should be "BBA" (uppercase)

@ThomasBinsfeld can you elaborate why you downvoted the comment above?
@luc-demeyer if you have a link to the spec of what must go in a SEPA Credit Transfer file for BBA structured communications, that would be helpful?

I didn't see the need to change that and imply some refactoring. But this part has been removed since.

ThomasBinsfeld · 2024-01-10T13:37:42Z

LGTM

github-actions · 2024-05-12T12:26:36Z

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

sbidoul · 2024-07-10T07:12:47Z

@sbejaoui @ThomasBinsfeld Is it not necessary to check and/or enforce invoice_reference_model = 'be', for instance in the migration script or in _check_communication ?

ThomasBinsfeld · 2024-07-15T10:23:37Z

@sbejaoui @ThomasBinsfeld Is it not necessary to check and/or enforce invoice_reference_model = 'be', for instance in the migration script or in _check_communication ?

The migration script looks to me. But the constraint on account.payment.line should check the reference model of the journal indeed.

ThomasBinsfeld · 2024-07-15T10:22:07Z

l10n_be_iso20022_pain/models/account_payment_line.py

+    @api.constrains("communication", "communication_type")
+    def _check_communication(self):
+        for rec in self:
+            if rec.communication_type == "structured" and not check_bbacomm(
+                rec.communication
+            ):
+                raise ValidationError(_("Invalid BBA Structured Communication !"))


Suggested change

@api.constrains("communication", "communication_type")

def _check_communication(self):

for rec in self:

if rec.communication_type == "structured" and not check_bbacomm(

rec.communication

):

raise ValidationError(_("Invalid BBA Structured Communication !"))

@api.constrains("order_id", "communication", "communication_type")

def _check_communication(self):

for rec in self:

if (

rec.order_id.journal_id.invoice_reference_model == "be"

and rec.communication_type == "structured"

and not check_bbacomm(rec.communication

):

raise ValidationError(_("Invalid BBA Structured Communication !"))

@ThomasBinsfeld , I made the field invoice_reference_model visible for the bank journal so we can perform this check. See the last commit.

OCA-git-bot · 2024-07-15T15:15:54Z

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

…yment line check BBA structured communication on payment line only if the journal invoice reference model is "be" Co-authored-by: Thomas Binsfeld (ACSONE) <[email protected]>

sbidoul · 2024-08-14T11:20:49Z

l10n_be_iso20022_pain/views/account_journal.xml

+            >
+                <attribute
+                    name="attrs"
+                >{'invisible': [('type', 'not in', ('sale', 'bank'))]}</attribute>


I'm not sure it makes sense to make invoice_reference_model and invoice_reference_type visible for other journals than customer invoice journals. Because when we pay invoice bills with a journal, we don't control the type of reference we need to use for the suppliers. So I think invoice_reference_model and invoice_reference_type should only be used when generating payment reference on documents that we generate, not documents that we receive from suppliers.

In this case, we remove the check on the payment reference in payment orders. We assume that the reference was checked for our invoices, and we don't concern ourselves with whether it's correct for vendor bills.

sbidoul · 2024-08-14T11:21:41Z

l10n_be_iso20022_pain/models/account_move.py

+                and rec.journal_id.invoice_reference_type == "invoice"
+                and rec.reference_type == "structured"
+            ):
+                return check_bbacomm(rec.ref)


Should we not use rec.payment_reference here?

At least for vendor bills, where ref is the supplier invoice number?

Should we not use rec.payment_reference here?

yes

At least for vendor bills, where ref is the supplier invoice number?

only for out_invoice, and don't check for VB

sbidoul and others added 23 commits September 21, 2023 14:51

[ADD] l10n_be_iso20022_pain

01624ac

Add bug tracker link on README.rst

1ab8e10

OCA Transbot updated translations from Transifex

220e3ea

[UPD] prefix versions with 8.0

2ec4b0f

[MIG] Make modules uninstallable

bce90c0

[FIX] remove en.po that was erroneously created by transbot

affe0ba

[MIG] Rename manifest files

48514f0

[MIG] 10n_be_iso20022_pain to 9.0

1e5192c

[FIX] l10n_be_iso20022: translation of selection field

d875aa3

[ADD] l10_be_iso20022_pain: french translation

f07ce47

[MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain to 10.0

d1f99ed

[FIX] header underline in readme

c93b39f

[FIX] l10n_be_iso20022_pain: test was really broken, fixed

fe32b66

OCA Transbot updated translations from Transifex

4832c81

remove obsolete .pot files [ci skip]

27e089a

[UPD] Update l10n_be_iso20022_pain.pot

0fc18bf

[ADD] icon.png

019db49

[MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain: run pre-commit

1d4e10a

[MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain to 13.0

f230b1c

[UPD] Update l10n_be_iso20022_pain.pot

e075ead

l10n_be_iso20022_pain 13.0.1.0.1

ba14450

[16.0][MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain

d2ebb70

rousseldenis reviewed Sep 22, 2023

View reviewed changes

rousseldenis approved these changes Sep 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

luc-demeyer reviewed Dec 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

ThomasBinsfeld approved these changes Jan 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

OCA-git-bot added the approved label Jan 10, 2024

github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label May 12, 2024

ThomasBinsfeld approved these changes Jun 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Jun 16, 2024

sbejaoui force-pushed the 16.0-l10n_be_iso20022_pain-sbj branch from a370091 to 535bd80 Compare July 9, 2024 19:38

[IMP] remove bba option from communication_type on payment line

f65c848

sbejaoui force-pushed the 16.0-l10n_be_iso20022_pain-sbj branch from 535bd80 to f65c848 Compare July 9, 2024 20:09

ThomasBinsfeld approved these changes Jul 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

ThomasBinsfeld suggested changes Jul 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

OCA-git-bot removed the approved label Jul 15, 2024

sbejaoui force-pushed the 16.0-l10n_be_iso20022_pain-sbj branch 2 times, most recently from 853f332 to f6a8c8f Compare July 15, 2024 15:01

ThomasBinsfeld approved these changes Jul 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

OCA-git-bot added approved ready to merge labels Jul 15, 2024

[IMP] l10n_be_iso20022_pain: check BBA structured communication on pa…

ec5fae3

…yment line check BBA structured communication on payment line only if the journal invoice reference model is "be" Co-authored-by: Thomas Binsfeld (ACSONE) <[email protected]>

sbejaoui force-pushed the 16.0-l10n_be_iso20022_pain-sbj branch from f6a8c8f to ec5fae3 Compare July 17, 2024 12:16

sbidoul reviewed Aug 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

sbidoul mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2024

[16.0] reference_type usability improvements OCA/bank-payment#1332

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[16.0][MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain #204

[16.0][MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain #204

sbejaoui commented Sep 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

rousseldenis Sep 22, 2023

sbejaoui Sep 25, 2023

sbidoul Dec 6, 2023

sbejaoui Jul 9, 2024

luc-demeyer Dec 7, 2023

sbidoul Aug 14, 2024

ThomasBinsfeld Aug 14, 2024

ThomasBinsfeld commented Jan 10, 2024

github-actions bot commented May 12, 2024

sbidoul commented Jul 10, 2024

ThomasBinsfeld commented Jul 15, 2024

ThomasBinsfeld Jul 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sbejaoui Jul 15, 2024

OCA-git-bot commented Jul 15, 2024

sbidoul Aug 14, 2024

sbejaoui Aug 14, 2024

sbidoul Aug 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sbidoul Aug 14, 2024

sbejaoui Aug 14, 2024

sbejaoui Aug 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

[16.0][MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain #204

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[16.0][MIG] l10n_be_iso20022_pain #204

Conversation

sbejaoui commented Sep 21, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ThomasBinsfeld commented Jan 10, 2024

github-actions bot commented May 12, 2024

sbidoul commented Jul 10, 2024

ThomasBinsfeld commented Jul 15, 2024

ThomasBinsfeld Jul 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OCA-git-bot commented Jul 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbidoul Aug 14, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbejaoui Aug 14, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sbejaoui commented Sep 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

ThomasBinsfeld Jul 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sbidoul Aug 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sbejaoui Aug 14, 2024 •

edited

Loading