Skip to Content
  2. Mailing Lists
  3. Contributors
  4. Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

Archives

Contributors

Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative

Alexis, your email is very difficult to be followed, especially with no text formatting nor inline links, but you are stating some lies directly: when you say that I merged the module on my own, that's absolutely false. Previously, after the meeting we had having Virginie as "mediator", both Enric and me makes 3 explicit propositions:

- Contact Odoo SA for knowing their plans expanding the usage of the 2 fields in res.partner. For now, in 18 and master, both fields are only used for pre-selecting a journal in the "Register payment" wizard, which is barely nothing.
- Do the surgery extraction of his improvements on the XML export code (and other possible direct improvements) over the current 18.0 branch.
- Delay the decision of adopting that 2 fields for the next version, depending on the answer in C1.

And you said that you have to think about it. After that, without giving an answer, you started the fork petition. That's when we started to merge the existing work.

It's very easy to say "I don't want a fork", but not resigning any of the things you want to get. The fact is that your conditions are: put my fork in 18, or nothing, let's go for the fork. That doesn't allow any margin to negotiation. And everything on this came from the fact that you deviated all your customers in 16 to your previous fork, and now you want to impose the whole OCA your agenda.

I'm still willing to converge the work in the terms we proposed in the meeting, even if it implies a lot of work on my side, apart from the already lost in all these attempts to get to an agreement. If not, I'm seriously thinking of abandoning OCA, and continuing on my own, focusing again on delivering high quality open Odoo modules, instead of losing a lot of time (and moreover, energy) in this, and in a asymmetric way, where I have to justify a lot of things against someone that is not giving the same to OCA as me and my organization. Another point to increase this feeling is the reply from Daniel, that states IMO the OCA board governance incompetence to handle these kinds of things, so I don't feel any advantage of doing things inside OCA, if at the end, I'm on my own on any trouble I find inside it. Neutrality doesn't serve here.

Regards.

by Pedro M. Baeza - 01:26 - 27 Jun 2025

Reference

  • OCA/bank-payment-alternative
    Dear OCA friends,

    On March 26th 2025, Stéphane Bidoul sent an email on this mailing-list with the subject "The future of OCA/bank-payment". If you missed it, you can find it in the archives:

    After some long discussion/debate, it was decided to let the chance for an alternative OCA banking project that would use the native payment method object of the "account" module (account.payment.method.line). This project is named OCA/bank-payment-alternative and you can find it here: 

    We had to change the module names in OCA/bank-payment-alternative. Here are the new names that were chosen :

    OCA/bank-payment OCA/bank-payment-alternative
    account_payment_order account_payment_batch_oca
    account_banking_pain_base account_payment_sepa_base
    account_banking_sepa_credit_transfer account_payment_sepa_credit_transfer
    account_banking_mandate account_payment_mandate
    account_banking_mandate_sale account_payment_mandate_sale
    account_banking_sepa_direct_debit account_payment_sepa_direct_debit
    account_payment_mode native + account_payment_base_oca
    account_payment_partner native
    account_payment_sale account_payment_base_oca_sale

    Here are the main changes in the datamodel introduced by OCA/bank-payment-alternative :
    1. Adoption of the native object account.payment.method.line as "Payment Method" (replaces the OCA object account.payment.mode)
    2. Introduction of account.payment.lot, which represent the Payments Lots (corresponds to the PmtInf i.e. Payment Information block of the SEPA XML files). If your bank groups the debits/credits on your bank statement for the payments, a lot matches one debit or credit payment line on your bank account. This object is generated upon confirmation of the payment order and is used in the generation of the XML (and should soon be used in the bank statement reconcile interface)
    3. the datamodel of the mandate has been simplified: the field "format" also has the information of the "scheme" field, so "format" now has 3 possible values : basic, sepa_core or sepa_b2b. The field "scheme" has been removed. The field "type" has 2 possible values: recurrent or oneoff (instead of 3 possible values : generic, recurrent or oneoff). The field "recurrent_sequence_type" has been removed because we don't need to handle the "first" vs "recurring" sequence any more : since November 2016, "the requirement to use the sequence type ‘First’ in a first of a recurrent series of Collections is no longer mandatory" according to the European Payment Council (EPC), cf SDD Core Rulebook. The "final" sequence is now supported by the state field which has a new "final" state that can be activated via a button. The field "partner_id" is NOT a related field of partner_bank_id any more, which solves the bug "account_banking_mandate: Change in the filtering behavior of the "Bank Account" field" https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment/issues/1473 With all these simplifications on the mandate datamodel, the form view and list view of mandates are more user-friendly.
    4. The field generated_user_id has been removed from account.payment.order (the info is present in the chatter)
    5. On account.payment.method, the boolean field "payment_order_only" has been renamed to "payment_order_ok" (for consistency)
    6. The boolean field "convert_to_ascii" has been removed from account.payment.method : we consider that this option should be always on (there is a hook in the code in case you need to disable it).
    Here is a summary of the new features and improvements by order of importance :
    • Take into account the boolean field "allow_out_payment" of res.partner.bank on payment orders : when you try to confirm a payment order that has bank accounts on payment lines with allow_out_payment = False, you will get a blocking error message. The affected payment lines will be shown in red and you will have a smart button that gives access to the bank accounts that are not allowed to send money to. To enable "allow_out_payment", you need to be part of a specific group "Validate bank accounts" (XMLID account.group_validate_bank_account). As a consequence, we don't inherit the native ACL of res.partner.bank that give full rights to partner manager any more : the security is handled by "allow_out_payment".
    • by default, there is a sequence of payment orders and another sequence for debit orders. It is possible to configure a specific sequence for a payment mode.
    • add support for "Regulatory Reporting" in the SEPA XML structure (tag RgltryRptg). Needed in some countries for international non-SEPA credit transfers.
    • replace unstructured address by structured address in SEPA XML file (mandatory starting 11/2025)
    • add support for pain.008.01.08 (SDD) and pain.001.001.09 (SCT), which are now the recommended versions of the EPC
    • easier download of the banking file after generation
    • add field acc_number_scrambled on res.partner.bank for easy and direct use of scrambled account number
    • search on partner_id from account.payment.order
    • support currencies with decimal_places != 2 in ISO20022 XML file generation
    • on mandates, fields format, type, signature date and partner are not editable any more when state != draft
    • remove support for pain.001.001.02/04/05 (SCT) and pain.008.01.03/04 (SDD) which have never been selected by the EPC, to simplify the code
    • stop using safe_eval() in XML generation
    • replace all @api.onchange by computed fields
    • add sql unicity constraint on payment order number per company
    Many bugs have been fixed:
    You can have a complete list of the changes and bug fixes of OCA/bank-payment-alternative on these 2 issues:

    But, for me, the most important of OCA/bank-payment-alternative is the investment made on the quality of the code, not only on the SEPA XML generation but also on the lower-level modules.

    OCA/bank-payment-alternative will continue to focus on code quality and innovation (which involves datamodel changes when needed).
    Now that the modules are merged, the next priority should be on providing migration scripts for v17 to v18 migration.

    So, for v18, you now have the choice between OCA/bank-payment and OCA/bank-payment-alternative. Happy hacking !

    --
    Alexis de Lattre
    Akretion France - 27 rue Henri Rolland - 69100 Villeurbanne - France
    Mail : alexis.delattre@akretion.com

    by Alexis de Lattre - 03:34 - 21 Jun 2025