[13.0] [MIG] fieldservice_maintenance #670
Conversation
…nce_equipment_id is not set
…code suggested by zbik2607
Currently translated at 100.0% (8 of 8 strings) Translation: field-service-12.0/field-service-12.0-fieldservice_maintenance Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/field-service-12-0/field-service-12-0-fieldservice_maintenance/pt_BR/
Co-authored-by: Daniel Reis <dgreis@sapo.pt>
Updated by "Update PO files to match POT (msgmerge)" hook in Weblate. Translation: field-service-12.0/field-service-12.0-fieldservice_maintenance Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/field-service-12-0/field-service-12-0-fieldservice_maintenance/
Updated by "Update PO files to match POT (msgmerge)" hook in Weblate. Translation: field-service-12.0/field-service-12.0-fieldservice_maintenance Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/field-service-12-0/field-service-12-0-fieldservice_maintenance/
|
Hi @smangukiya, @bodedra, @max3903, |
| ondelete="restrict", | ||
| delegate=True, | ||
| auto_join=True, | ||
| index=True, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You need required=True for delegate fields.
If the reason is that the field becomes required on the Form view, you can adapt the attrs required with False in the view.
| [("maintenance_equipment_id", "=", equipment.id)] | ||
| ) | ||
| if not other: | ||
| equipment.is_fsm_equipment = False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is_fsm_equipment should be a computed field. If you are using a One2many fsm_equipment_ids on maintenance.equipment then your computed field just have to look if fsm_equipment_ids contains records.
Therefore you don't have to overwrite the unlink anymore.
| maintenance_equipment_id = self.env["maintenance.equipment"].create( | ||
| self._prepare_maintenance_vals(vals) | ||
| ) | ||
| if maintenance_equipment_id: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The "if" here is not necessary because if the create doesn't work, you'll have an exception
| if maintenance_equipment_id: | ||
| vals.update({"maintenance_equipment_id": maintenance_equipment_id.id}) | ||
| res = super().create(vals) | ||
| maintenance_equipment_id.fsm_equipment_id = res.id |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should use a one2many (fsm_equipment_ids) on maintenance.equipment model. Therefore no need to write on the maintenance_equipment after the create.
| _inherit = "maintenance.equipment" | ||
|
|
||
| is_fsm_equipment = fields.Boolean(string="Is a FSM Equipment") | ||
| fsm_equipment_id = fields.Many2one("fsm.equipment", "FSM Equipment", readonly=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be a one2many. Is there any reason why you use a many2one instead?
| class MaintenanceEquipment(models.Model): | ||
| _inherit = "maintenance.equipment" | ||
|
|
||
| is_fsm_equipment = fields.Boolean(string="Is a FSM Equipment") |
| class MaintenanceRequest(models.Model): | ||
| _inherit = "maintenance.request" | ||
|
|
||
| fsm_order_id = fields.Many2one("fsm.order", "Field Service Order") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why don't use a one2many fields with inverse_name = request_id ?
With your current implementation when you create the maintenance.request from the fsm.order your fsm_order_id is empty.
You should have a same result from both side therefore it is better to use a one2many.
If you need a "one2one" relation I think it is better to apply a constrains()
| self._context.get("active_ids", []) | ||
| ) | ||
| for maintenance_id in maintenance_equpment_ids: | ||
| if not (maintenance_id.product_id or maintenance_id.lot_id): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi there! Thanks for this pr.
I have a problem with this line.
It leads to a bug since there is no product_id on a maintenance.equipment.
|
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. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
stale
Migration of fieldservice_maintenance to 13.0
#354
Moved from #657