Contributors mailing list archives
Re: Partner unicityby
Akretion France, David BEAL
I like Holger's approach too.
I like Holger's approach too.
2018-04-18 11:02 GMT+02:00 Graeme Gellatly <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
In practice I think some of the causes are possibly more usability related, which I guess is why I like Holgers approach as it addresses the deficient usability rather than setting a bunch of constraints.Certainly better search helps. Multi key trigram similarity searching combined with popups like Holger suggests.Also more granular access controls on partners is something I've pondered, i.e. can only create contacts of companies, not companies for salespeople in a b2b environment. I can't help but think a lot of this is model related too. Never seemed such an issue with res.partner.address.But again often searching is hamstrung by a domain on the view (e.g. is_customer=True) and duplicate is currently a vendor only. Or for whatever reason the customer is inactive, or the ACL's don't permit.Also Quick Create is the devil for partners if combined with <word for less than clever> users. Forget duplicates, if a word is difficult to spell you'll have 50 copies in a year. Disabling quick create, and actually disabling create as well in most screens really cut down the issue for me, because they have to go to customers (etc) and create one and normally they'll at least search properly there, worry about parents etc. I guess that works in a b2b context because realy you aren't creating customers that often. In a b2c context, it seems email and/or mobile is what retailers use for their loyalty programs.Also partner merge has issues. One example I saw lately is individuals ordering memberships on OCA and their company paying, and they already have an individual contact and partner merge doesn't move the accounting entries to the parent, but at the same time disables any selection of the individual in any accounting screens, but the payment was registered against the invoice before bank reconciliation. Getting all that back straight is no easy task so yes stopping duplicates in the first place would be great.On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:16 PM, Levent Karakas <email@example.com> wrote:There are few dimensions to consider:1) company/person2) parent / child (contact, address)3) active / inactive.Generally speaking, parents with same type (company/person) can strictly be unique over a field but contacts might share some fields with each other or the parent. Inactive could be ignored in most cases.2018-04-18 10:47 GMT+03:00 Alexis de Lattre <firstname.lastname@example.org>
:2018-04-18 9:32 GMT+02:00 Johan Van Hirtum <email@example.com>:Very good remark, thanks ! I guess companies that may encounter this usecase should not install the 'partner_mobile_unique' module and I'll mention this scenario as a warning in the module description.
Even mobile cannot be unique. For example, sometimes you have the same person 2 times as a customer : 1 time as a private person, 1 time as a company with TVA.