Skip to Content
  2. Mailing Lists
  3. Contributors
  4. Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

Archives

Contributors

Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

Re: The future of oca/bank-payment

Hi everyone,

I reviewed the video. And it doesn't change my position. I think that it is an overengineer work to do something that is more natural with the current system. I don't see the real benefits of the change, as the current system does it properly with a more direct and simple approach. I think we should end this discussion soon in order to get a solution for 18 soon. 

My proposal would be the following: Merge the modules migrated by Tecnativa. Create a separate system for your proposal (we could create a separate repo if you prefer). It might happen in the future that both systems are merged (similar to storage_backend and fs_storage... at the end, they merged, but they started splitted), but right now it doesn't seem so 

Kind regards,

El mar, 1 abr 2025 a las 18:37, Alexis de Lattre (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Dear community,

Le mer. 26 mars 2025 à 18:09, Alexis de Lattre <alexis.delattre@akretion.com> a écrit :
Dear Enric,

Le mer. 26 mars 2025 à 12:47, Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :
For example with the current system we can decide the bank to pay at the end in a simple way, no complication on that side. With this change, everything becomes more complicated, removing part of the functionality that we have and it was much better that the current Odoo behavior. Also, it implies that users will see one TRansference payment method for each journal, and that is a nonsense.

Did you test my v18 PR that adds the module account_payment_base_oca https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment/pull/1401 ?
My goal was to use the native object account.payment.method.line (used in v18 as "payment mode" on partners and invoices) while keeping the feature "decide the bank to pay at the end in a simple way". And I managed to implement it without breaking the native behavior. It was important to keep this feature !

I prepared a short screencast of my PR 1401 that illustrate the fact that my implementation keeps the feature "decide the bank to pay at the end in a simple way", like in OCA/bank-payment v9 to v17 :


So we can adopt the native object "account.payment.method.line" and keep the great features of OCA/bank-payment.
I even added a small improvement : when you configure "Link to Bank Account" to "Variable", you can select a Default Bank Journal if you want (it's optional).
 
--
Alexis de Lattre

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



--
Enric Tobella Alomar
CEO & Founder

by Enric Tobella Alomar - 06:51 - 2 Apr 2025

Reference

  • The future of oca/bank-payment
    Hi everyone,

    The oca/bank-payment repository has the essential modules to prepare and generate SEPA (and more) payment orders for credit transfer and direct debit.

    Today, there are important decisions to make about the future of this module.

    18 months ago, Alexis de Lattre, (one of) the original authors of these modules, started a huge effort to modernize these modules and improve their overall quality.
    He explained his approach in this PR 1174 for 16.0  [1]. 
    Naturally, that PR was not merged because it came too late in the 16.0 release cycle. 

    Now Alexis continues this effort with a series of 18.0 pull requests, with the important addition that he proposes to replace the Payment Mode object by the now native object from Odoo. 

    In Odoo v18, Odoo SA introduced new "Payment mode" M2O fields in the "account" module (cf this commit [6]):
    - on res.partner : one property field "Customer Payment Method" and one property field "Supplier Payment Method"
    - on invoices (account.move) : one field "Payment Method", copied from res.partner and that can be modified
    Up to Odoo v17, these "Payment mode" fields were not native ; they were added by the OCA module account_payment_partner from OCA/bank-payment.
    These new native "Payment mode" fields use the model account.payment.method.line (which was introduced in v15).

    Migrating to use these native fields makes a lot of sense to align with Odoo to avoid duplication of fields and logic.

    For more context, There was some discussion in the 16.0 PR [1], the 18.0 migration issue [4], as well as [5].

    I personally very much welcome this effort as I think the quality of Alexis' work is excellent (as usual), and this will create a solid foundation for the future.
    Indeed, over the many years of history of these modules, the only significant refactoring was Pedro's important work to adapt them to use Account Payment, and these modules start to show their great age.

    Alexis' work can be tested on runboat PR 1406 for direct debit [2] and PR 1405 for credit transfer [3]. From the preliminary tests we have done at Acsone it works fine.

    Of course, such work is not a traditional migration, and is difficult to review due to the importance of the changes. This will also create some additional migration work for maintainers of modules that depend on it (for instance the migration from Payment Mode to native Payment Methods will require some effort, although not difficult).

    On the other hand, reaching the same result by incremental improvements is going to be impossible, because as soon as a module is merged it starts to be extended, and some evolutions will not be possible in a backward-compatible way.

    So Akretion and Acsone propose to add migration scripts, and merge Alexis' work in 18.0 and rapidly iterate from there to review and add possible features that would have been missed in the transition. At Acsone we plan to put significant effort on this repo in the coming 3-4 months.

    Would there be agreement on such an approach?

    Best regards,

    -Stéphane

    by Stéphane Bidoul - 11:45 - 26 Mar 2025