Conversation
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
2 times, most recently
from
December 30, 2025 09:12
663c231 to
be0367d
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
/ocabot migration product_contract |
Contributor
|
Sorry @bosd you are not allowed to mark the addon to be migrated. To do so you must either have push permissions on the repository, or be a declared maintainer of all modified addons. If you wish to adopt an addon and become it's maintainer, open a pull request to add your GitHub login to the |
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
4 times, most recently
from
December 30, 2025 13:52
53f361e to
3600f5d
Compare
bosd
marked this pull request as ready for review
December 30, 2025 13:53
Member
|
/ocabot migration product_contract @bosd I see that you have generated |
Contributor
Author
Yeah, I noticed that the custom script i used, created this.. |
Member
|
Uhm, I don't think it's OK, as now it's even more confusing about its source. I would prefer to let them as it was than this way. |
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
December 30, 2025 19:04
3600f5d to
53cde28
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
It is ok now |
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
January 2, 2026 13:59
53cde28 to
321af49
Compare
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
February 10, 2026 11:10
670735b to
bcf1c24
Compare
|
Hey @bosd, I found this issue raulovallet@67bfd99. It causes the default values not to be set correctly and throws an error when closing the window. I’m not sure how I can contribute—could you make a cherry-pick or I have to do a pull request here? |
Contributor
|
Hi @bosd , I am facing an issue here with this module - the required="is_contract" on date_start seems to be wrong. In state draft,sent there must not be a date_start specified. Why is this required ? |
Contributor
|
Hi @bosd , Please ignore my last comment - i found the real issue... I have been working on an migrated database (migrated from v16) - i had sale.order.line's with contract_start_date_method='manual' and date_start=null For the record - i've fixed it with: UPDATE sale_order_line sol
SET date_start = COALESCE(
(SELECT cl.date_start FROM contract_line cl
WHERE cl.sale_order_line_id = sol.id AND cl.date_start IS NOT NULL LIMIT 1),
(SELECT so.date_order::date FROM sale_order so WHERE so.id = sol.order_id),
sol.create_date::date
)
FROM product_product pp
JOIN product_template pt ON pt.id = pp.product_tmpl_id
WHERE sol.product_id = pp.id
AND pt.is_contract IS TRUE
AND sol.date_start IS NULL
AND COALESCE(sol.contract_start_date_method, 'manual') = 'manual'; |
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
May 12, 2026 21:16
e1d146d to
a31eb84
Compare
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
June 11, 2026 06:48
a31eb84 to
a375146
Compare
|
Any update for this? |
Member
|
/ocabot rebase |
Contributor
|
@etobella The rebase process failed, because command |
etobella
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
September 4, 2026 09:14
a375146 to
fc8a7ad
Compare
…ttings [IMP] product_contract: add Recurrence Number to compute start and end dates [FIX] product_contract: add sol name dependes [IMP] product_contract: add recurrence interval [IMP] product_contract: add recurring_interval
…d to recurrence_number for more clarity rename default_qty to recurrence_number
…ack a contract template Before this commit, confirming a sales order would raise an exception if any line lacked a configured contract template, preventing the creation of the contract. Now, sales order lines without a contract template are automatically added to a new contract without a template, allowing the process to continue seamlessly.
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
2 times, most recently
from
September 4, 2026 13:25
ca4fb8e to
3d004a4
Compare
etobella
reviewed
Sep 7, 2026
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| odoo-addon-contract_termination @ git+https://github.com/OCA/contract@refs/pull/1367/head#subdirectory=contract_termination | |||
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be removed from the migration commit 😉
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
September 22, 2026 08:25
3d004a4 to
a9dbb5c
Compare
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
September 22, 2026 08:28
a9dbb5c to
428b17e
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
@tobiaszehntner an you please review? |
tobiaszehntner
approved these changes
Sep 22, 2026
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
September 22, 2026 10:47
428b17e to
b11857a
Compare
The context sent to the contract configurator was missing default_recurrence_interval. It was lost when the context was moved to the contractContext getter. As a result, the configurator always showed the model default (Month(s)) for the contract duration unit, and validating it wrote that value back to the sale order line. A product sold for "6 Year(s)" ended up as "6 Month(s)" on the line, and so did the contract end date once it was recomputed, e.g. when the start date is set at confirmation.
…perties instead of array indices Cherry-picked from raulovallet/contract@67bfd99
`contract.contract.sale_order_count` / `action_view_sales_orders` and `contract.line._get_auto_renew_rule_type` had no test at all, which is what dropped the patch coverage below the branch baseline. Add tests for the sale order count, both branches of the sales order action (single order opens the form, several open the list), the auto renew rule type mapping for `monthlylastday`, and the sale order line link that `_prepare_invoice_line` puts on the invoice line.
`sale.order.line.invoice_line_create()` has not existed in `sale` since v12; invoicing goes through `_create_invoices` / `_prepare_invoice_line`. The override has therefore been unreachable for several series - calling it would raise `AttributeError` on the `super()` call - and it is referenced nowhere else. Contract lines are already kept out of the sale invoicing flow by the `_compute_invoice_status` and `_compute_qty_to_invoice` overrides right next to it, so nothing takes over from this removal.
bosd
force-pushed
the
19.0-mig-product_contract
branch
from
September 26, 2026 12:28
b11857a to
e6431bb
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
20 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Standard migration using odoo-module-migrator .
This version is severly cleaned according to:
https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Merge-commits-in-pull-requests#mergesquash-the-commits-generated-by-bots-or-weblate
Total reduction from 202 to 105 commits (44% reduction)
Also lists the depends properly.
depends on:
#1312
#1367
#1370