[IMP] cooperator[_website]: Improve form

OCA / cooperative

GNU Affero General Public License v3.0

11 stars 22 forks source link

[IMP] cooperator[_website]: Improve form #116

Open carmenbianca opened 9 months ago

carmenbianca commented 9 months ago

Internal task: https://gestion.coopiteasy.be/web#id=11130&action=479&model=project.task&view_type=form&menu_id=536

huguesdk commented 9 months ago

@victor-champonnois about the “new cooperator” type for an existing contact: it is counter-intuitive, but it is valid and important: this is to allow to create a subscription (to become a cooperator) for a contact (res.partner) that already exists in the database but is not yet a cooperator.

what should be prevented, though, are these combinations:

type is increase, existing contact is none (existing contact must become required in case of increase) or existing contact is not already a cooperator
type is new cooperator, existing contact is set to a contact that is already a cooperator

moreover, when an existing contact is selected, all the fields corresponding to the contact properties and not related to the subscription request itself should become read-only, because the contact details will not be updated from the subscription request.

huguesdk commented 9 months ago

@victor-champonnois @carmenbianca i realize that the subscription type should not be editable: it should be read-only and computed from the existing contact field:

if it is set and the contact is already member: increase
otherwise: new

it should just be there for information, and i think that a more logical place would be after the existing contact field. what do you think?

victor-champonnois commented 9 months ago

Yes it sounds like a good idea !

victor-champonnois commented 9 months ago

@huguesdk I've implemented your idea. (cf last commit). @carmenbianca

victor-champonnois commented 9 months ago

... and fixed the tests (including some other test errors). Strange, this behavior was in contradiction with one of the test (a sub request for an existing partner that is not yet member was expected to be of type "increase").

carmenbianca commented 8 months ago

Rebased this on top of 6eef0d9 because otherwise there would be merge conflicts and the tests wouldn't run.

carmenbianca commented 8 months ago

Made some small fixes on top of @victor-champonnois 's work. Ready for review+merge I think

github-actions[bot] commented 4 months ago

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days. If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.