[18.0][IMP] rma_repair #682
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 18.0 #682 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 79.35%
=======================================
Files ? 130
Lines ? 5560
Branches ? 702
=======================================
Hits ? 4412
Misses ? 922
Partials ? 226 Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
chafique-delli
force-pushed
the
18.0-IMP-rma_repair
branch
from
8e54767 to
b230c03
Compare
LoisRForgeFlow
left a comment
LoisRForgeFlow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for raising the issue and contributing. However, I do not fully agree with your approach. See below.
| under_warranty = fields.Boolean( | ||
| rma_under_warranty = fields.Boolean( | ||
| string="Under Warranty", | ||
| related="rma_line_id.under_warranty", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was making the repair one related to the linked RMA (at least that's the intention, I have not functionally checked). In case, we don't want to disconnect them, you should fix only the view and keep only one.
If what I describe above (have both fields related) does not work as one would expect, a refactor with proper compute methods might be needed.
chafique-delli
force-pushed
the
18.0-IMP-rma_repair
branch
from
f467cc8 to
e954987
Compare
chafique-delli
force-pushed
the
18.0-IMP-rma_repair
branch
from
e954987 to
7d8f10e
Compare
|
@chafique-delli thanks for adjusting, have you tested what I mentioned? |
3 participants
On the repair order, the basic field 'Under warranty' and the field 'Under warranty' linked to the RMA are confusing.
I think it's better to display only one of the two.
@JasminSForgeFlow , @LoisRForgeFlow