Contributors mailing list archives
Re: Operating in various companies simultaneouslyby
ForgeFlow, S.L., Jordi Ballester Alomar
Yes, it is interesting.
This sounds like what OCB was all about in the first place.
On Jun 15, 2017 11:23 AM, "Ronald Portier" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Hello Jordi, I think the initiative to make Odoo better for multicompany situations is really important. What we do now in many cases is not implement multicompany, but provide separate databases per company, where feasible, that is where not too many products or relations are shared. Just one doubt on the bugfix modules, that are paired with PR's for Odoo core. Would it then not be better to revive the Odoo backports, so that people can use that, instead of Odoo plain, while awaiting the PR's to be fixed? Alternatively, people that do not like the backport idea could use either buildout or git-aggregate to install Odoo with the multicompany fixes included. Just asking... Kind regards, Ronald Op 14-06-17 om 07:53 schreef Jordi Ballester Alomar: > Dave, Pedro. > > I velieve that that base_multi_company attempts to resolve a different > problem. The availability of certain models to various companies > simultaneously. > > But what our proposal intends to solve is for a user to be able to carry > out operations (e.g. Sales, pickings, invoices) regardless of what > company they fall in. > > What must be ensured is a consistent flow. E.g. You cannot create a > sales order for company A that refers tp a warehouse from company B. > Basic, fundamental consistence of the processes. > > I agree with Pedro that the modules that provide bugfixes would call for > many potential glue modules to other OCA modules. But remember that the > final intention is for these bugfix modules to disappear once they are > merged in Odoo code upstream. > > We could build a policy overnance rule for the project that requires > that any bugfix module requires a corresponding PR for the bugfix it > provides to Odoo core, so that there will be a clear roadmap. > > > When the bugfixes have been attended by Odoo, S.A in core, there will > not be a problem anymore with OCA modules. > > > While this does not occur, integrators shoyld be warned of the potential > implications of using the modules. > > And I am sure that many will weight the options and choose to build few > extra glue modules, towards achieving the greater benefits of a truly > sinultaneous multicompany operation. > > > As for the bugfixes, they are very small, compared to the potential > benefits they provide, so it is in the best interest of Odoo, S.A to > consider them. > > IMHMO the current multi-company approach may be good for dad and pop > shops, but is a barrier entry to larger Odoo implementations. > > On Jun 13, 2017 7:08 PM, "David Lasley" <email@example.com> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote: > > Regarding the property fields - take a look at our discussion > in OCA/multi-company#39 > , where we attempted > to work through some of these issues. I would love to see our multi > company logic expanded- this is a serious pain point for me. > > Take a look at our pass-through functionality in > thebase_multi_company Abstract Model > , > which helps out with some of the independent logic on the models + > provides a relational for company assignments that breach the > standard security. I’ve been meaning to write up a ReadMe on this - > it’s horribly documented right now. > > — Dave Lasley > >> On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Bidoul@pad.odoo-community.org>> <mailto:Bidoul@pad.odoo-
community.org> wrote: >> >> Great initiative Jordi. >> >> Note it might be hard to fix everything in modules. Ideally all >> these multi-company scenarios must be fixed in Odoo core because >> you also have crons running as admin which hits such bugs. >> >> In my experience Odoo usually accepts patches for these issues. If >> not accepted in stable, propose them to Odoo master. >> >> You could keep an inventory of such PR's in an issue or wiki in >> OCA/multi-company.. >> >> -sbi >> >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Jordi Ballester Alomar >> >> wrote: >> >> Dear OCA contributors, >> >> We have started a project to implement in Odoo 10 the >> capability for users to be able operate on multiple companies >> simultaneously. >> >> As you all know, nowadays when a user has access to multiple >> companies she has to manually switch from one company to the >> other, to be able to operate on each. This is very frustrating >> for people that work on multiple companies at the same time. >> >> Currently you can create a parent company if you want to have >> full visibility of the child companies, but users need to be >> warned not to operate on the parent companies, because they >> would be at risk of introducing lots of inconsistencies. >> >> The project attempts to resolve two issues separately: >> >> 1. *Existing bugs in Odoo.* Attempts to fix the errors that >> you get in the processes if you operate in two companies >> simultaneously. For example, if you are creating an invoice >> associated to company B, the accounts available to the user >> should be from this same company. With this fixes a user >> should also be able to operate correctly Odoo, in the current >> swith-company approach. These bugfixes should ultimately land >> in Odoo core. >> >> >> 2. *Maintain property fields from different companies >> simultaneously on a given model*. For example, when you create >> a partner you want to assign the receivable and payable >> accounts to all companies for that partner. >> >> Inline image 1 >> >> The project is under way at this moment, and proved the >> feasibility of the approach. >> >> Currently we are hosting the code in the following repo: >> https://github.com/Eficent/ multicompany-fixes/tree/10.0->> >> >> The modules with prefix *mcfix* *handle the bufgixes >> The modules with prefix *multicompany* *handle the >> simultaneous maintenance of property fields associated to a >> given model. >> >> *Next steps* >> 1. Can we host the modules in >> https://github.com/OCA/multi- property_functionality-fixes company>> ? >> 2. We need contributors to assist to review and complete the >> work. Identify new modules that need bugfixes, or require >> simultaneous property field management >> 3. We need agreement on the module naming conventions. >> >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Jordi Ballester Alomar >> CEO & Founder | Eficent >> (+34) 629530707 | >> email@example.com>> <mailto:jordi.ballester@ eficent.com> | http://www.eficent.com>> >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/jbeficent_>> >> >> ______________________________ erp>> | >> Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ jordiballesteralomar _________________ >> Mailing-List: >> https://odoo-community.org/ groups/contributors-15>> >> Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo- community.org>> <mailto:contributors@odoo- community.org> >> Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/ groups?unsubscribe>> >> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ >> Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/ groups/contributors-15>> >> Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo- community.org>> <mailto:contributors@odoo- community.org> >> Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/ groups?unsubscribe>> >> > > ______________________________ _________________ > Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/ groups/contributors-15> > Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo- community.org> <mailto:contributors@odoo- community.org> > Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/ groups?unsubscribe> > > ______________________________ _________________ > Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/ groups/contributors-15> Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo- community.org> Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/ groups?unsubscribe>