[17.0] [IMP] fieldservice[_*]: populate person_id and warehouse_id from the related territory (if set)
#1281
Conversation
|
Hi @brian10048, @max3903, @wolfhall, @smangukiya, |
ivantodorovich
force-pushed
the
17.0-fieldservice-computed-ref
branch
from
2dda2db to
539076d
Compare
ivantodorovich
force-pushed
the
17.0-fieldservice-computed-ref
branch
from
539076d to
bc6f807
Compare
ivantodorovich
force-pushed
the
17.0-fieldservice-computed-ref
branch
from
bc6f807 to
4467947
Compare
|
@OCA/field-service-maintainers ok to merge? |
|
@ivantodorovich Yes |
| ) | ||
| equipment_ids = fields.Many2many("fsm.equipment") | ||
|
|
||
| @api.depends("location_id") | ||
| def _compute_person_id(self): | ||
| """Compute the person from the location's territory""" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I recall correctly, you may not use territory and assing person directly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The territory comes from the location (related to location_id.territory_id)
So the goal here is to populate the order's assigned user from the related territory's partner (if set)
Not sure if it clarifies something for you, I'm not sure I understood what you mean
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes but leaving person_id blank is a feature.
The use of territory_id on location is optionnal.
I have business case where the vendor create the FSM Order and set a location (and leave person_id with no value), then (few days after) some manager assign a person to the fsm order.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That case still works, you just don't set any territory on the location, or no Assigned user on the territory.
Isn't it enough for your use case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you need a "default_person_id" on territory or fsm_location, why not just create one ?
It will be more explicit about what it does.
In order to achieve it in a clean and performant way, some refactors have been made to convert onchanges to computed (stored and writable) fields.