Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[14.0][REF] include representative address type in cooperator #363

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 27, 2022

Conversation

victor-champonnois
Copy link
Member

@victor-champonnois victor-champonnois commented Sep 2, 2022

fix #350
related to coopiteasy/addons#262
12.0 version: #362

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 2, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #363 (d95c8c8) into 14.0 (5db1d0c) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             14.0     #363      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   47.59%   47.62%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          51       51              
  Lines        1914     1915       +1     
  Branches      352      352              
==========================================
+ Hits          911      912       +1     
  Misses        952      952              
  Partials       51       51              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cooperator/models/partner.py 75.00% <100.00%> (+0.27%) ⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Copy link
Member

@robinkeunen robinkeunen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👌 can you add the note about the conflicting representative fields like in 12.0 ?

Copy link
Member

@robinkeunen robinkeunen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👌 can you add the note about the conflicting representative fields like in 12.0 ?

@victor-champonnois
Copy link
Member Author

LGTM ok_hand can you add the note about the conflicting representative fields like in 12.0 ?

Done

Copy link
Member

@robinkeunen robinkeunen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thx!

cooperator/models/partner.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@github-grap-bot
Copy link
Contributor

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). 🤖

@huguesdk huguesdk force-pushed the 14.0-add-representative-address-type branch from 4f4d440 to 70c9d9d Compare September 27, 2022 10:05
@huguesdk huguesdk changed the title [ADD] representative type in cooperator [14.0][REF] include representative type in cooperator Sep 27, 2022
@huguesdk huguesdk changed the title [14.0][REF] include representative type in cooperator [14.0][REF] include representative address type in cooperator Sep 27, 2022
Put the representative type in cooperator module instead of in
partner_contact_address for inclusion in OCA.
@huguesdk huguesdk force-pushed the 14.0-add-representative-address-type branch from 70c9d9d to fe3e791 Compare September 27, 2022 10:12
@huguesdk
Copy link
Member

/ocabot merge minor

@github-grap-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 14.0-ocabot-merge-pr-363-by-huguesdk-bump-minor, awaiting test results.

@github-grap-bot github-grap-bot merged commit 335285f into 14.0 Sep 27, 2022
@github-grap-bot github-grap-bot deleted the 14.0-add-representative-address-type branch September 27, 2022 10:23
@github-grap-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at c8aeaf5. Thanks a lot for contributing to coopiteasy. ❤️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants