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

> I merely pointed out a couple of things I found inadequate in this thread, and saddened me.

Stéphane. I had already answered to this, as there's no inadequate behavior not having to wait more time if things are clear.

> My understanding on that is that there was no alternative option that would have not cost him a huge effort on top of what he had done already. If everyone had an infinite budget and time available things would be easier :)

That's not true, as all my offerings put time on my side, not him, and I have already expressed that several times. What I see inadequate is that you, Stéphane, not being part of the meeting we took, or even the conversations, seen that all that I wrote is being ignored, and given your reputation inside OCA ecosystem, throws out to me personally bad behaviors, while softening other even worst behaviors by Alexis admitted by him, like having a code that has not follow community guidelines nor collaborative minimum rules (I remind you that the proposed branch is a fork of 16.0 done 2 years ago, excluding all the community improvements meanwhile).

Regards.
by Pedro M. Baeza - 07:41 - 18 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