[14.0] edi: refactor model rules w/ specific model

[simahawk]

Long awaited improvement.
Allows to decouple rules by model giving much more flexibility.
Migration steps included.
Backward compat kept.

[OCA-git-bot]

Hi @etobella,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

[simahawk]

@etobella can you please have a look? I know you might have existing implementations for Spanish localization that rely on form btns and I'd like not to break them if possible :)

[etobella]

I did not override that function, but the change might break installation, as the fields might be used on data 🤔
I know you added a migration script, but might be a problem...

https://github.com/OCA/l10n-spain/blob/14.0/l10n_es_facturae_face/data/edi.xml#L16-L21

[simahawk]

I did not override that function, but the change might break installation, as the fields might be used on data thinking I know you added a migration script, but might be a problem...

https://github.com/OCA/l10n-spain/blob/14.0/l10n_es_facturae_face/data/edi.xml#L16-L21

I see. What would you suggest? Can't we update those files? Shouldn't be that hard.

Other options:

1. full backward compat (eg: keep the fields and rely on the rule to lookup for conf on the type + hide fields on type form via specific group)
2. leave fields, hide and ignore them (they will get migrated anyway) + log deprecation

I would like to avoid both of them honestly 😜

[etobella]

My suggestion would be to leave them for 14, 15 and 16, but make them non storable and store the data properly on the new table. We need to make an inverse and compute in order to fill the data and fields properly 🤔

I know it is much harder, but it is probably cleaner, WDYT?

[simahawk]

My suggestion would be to leave them for 14, 15 and 16, but make them non storable and store the data properly on the new table. We need to make an inverse and compute in order to fill the data and fields properly thinking

I know it is much harder, but it is probably cleaner, WDYT?

Ok for 14 and 15 but definitely not for 16 (which is not even ready yet).

I'm not in favor of keeping full support for the old style tho:

1. hide fields, to not break those files
2. deprecate it, to force users to switch (maybe even w/ a nice warning on the form)
3. add an inverse field only to reflect updates if necessary if you keep using the outdated version in such files

Sounds good?
Otherwise let's make a call (like in the old days) 😉

[simahawk]

@etobella ping :)

[etobella]

Good for me @simahawk If it is not merged on 16, we can remove the old way there 😉

[simahawk]

@etobella backward compat layer added. Tests included. Could you please test on your side when you have time?

[simahawk]

Small improvement: a btn to wipe fields carefully

[OriolMForgeFlow]

Hi @simahawk ,
I am encountering an error during testing in runboat, as I am unable to create Exchange Type Rules, since the field type_id is required but is not displayed within the form view.

[simahawk]

Hi @simahawk , I am encountering an error during testing in runboat, as I am unable to create Exchange Type Rules, since the field type_id is required but is not displayed within the form view.

Sorry, I missed a commit. Pushed now

[simahawk]

@etobella could you drop a review here pls?

[etobella]

I will test it this weekend 😁

[johnny-longneck]

Hey Simone, I said I will also look at it this weekend but at the moment I will leave it to Etobella,

I was checking runboat and used the existing form button rule for sales orders and so far I am not seeing the button.

So, I was working mostly on the output direction for EDI and I am struggling to understand how to test it manually.
Following my ticket with "Documentation required" I would have liked some update on the readme file, with a section how to setup the new decoupled rules.

But as far as I understand it, I think the change is really good.
For my case, I mostly just have a model in the exchange type rules and let the model listener do the rest so my knowledge ends here.

[etobella]

Tested locally against l10n-spain tests and all worked properly except for the comment.

Good for me then 😄

[simahawk]

Hey Simone, I said I will also look at it this weekend but at the moment I will leave it to Etobella,

I was checking runboat and used the existing form button rule for sales orders and so far I am not seeing the button.

So, I was working mostly on the output direction for EDI and I am struggling to understand how to test it manually. Following my ticket with "Documentation required" I would have liked some update on the readme file, with a section how to setup the new decoupled rules.

But as far as I understand it, I think the change is really good. For my case, I mostly just have a model in the exchange type rules and let the model listener do the rest so my knowledge ends here.

You are right, thanks for your feedback.
I'm adding a new section in the configuration part.

[john-herholz-dt]

Much clearer now, thanks!

[simahawk]

/ocabot merge nobump

[OCA-git-bot]

On my way to merge this fine PR!
Prepared branch 14.0-ocabot-merge-pr-797-by-simahawk-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

[OCA-git-bot]

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 1c2033f. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️