[16.0] [MIG] fieldservice account payment by rrebollo · Pull Request #1489 · OCA/field-service

rrebollo · 2025-12-31T14:40:13Z

Standard migration from 15.0.
Then we did some refactoring - mainly, but not only, to the test suite. The goal was to better align code with 16.0, keep it clean and modern.

#963
@BinhexTeam

Co-authored-by: Daniel Reis <dreis@opensourceintegrators.com>

Currently translated at 100.0% (9 of 9 strings) Translation: field-service-14.0/field-service-14.0-fieldservice_account_payment Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/field-service-14-0/field-service-14-0-fieldservice_account_payment/it/

Currently translated at 100.0% (9 of 9 strings) Translation: field-service-14.0/field-service-14.0-fieldservice_account_payment Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/field-service-14-0/field-service-14-0-fieldservice_account_payment/es_AR/

Updated by "Update PO files to match POT (msgmerge)" hook in Weblate. Translation: field-service-15.0/field-service-15.0-fieldservice_account_payment Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/field-service-15-0/field-service-15-0-fieldservice_account_payment/

Currently translated at 100.0% (5 of 5 strings) Translation: field-service-15.0/field-service-15.0-fieldservice_account_payment Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/field-service-15-0/field-service-15-0-fieldservice_account_payment/it/

inject `default_customer_id` in context in tests to stick to the required fields in `fsm.location` in `fieldservice_account_analytic` wrong inbound_payment_method_line on bank journal

edescalona

Code Review. Great work, just if you could complete the test for _compute_fsm_order_ids

rrebollo · 2026-03-16T15:48:05Z

@marcos-mendez There's an ongoing heated debate in the community regarding the role of AI in contributions. Your review (or the AI-generated one) leads me to believe that allowing this kind of practice at this point is not a good idea. Nothing personal.

Frankly, your suggestion lacks consideration of common sense and offers nothing substantive for review.

I respectfully ask you to refrain from polluting PRs with this type of spam or low-quality reviews. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to contribute, but I don't believe this approach leads to the best outcomes.

@pedrobaeza please correct me if my attitude here wasn't appropriate. Is there—or should there be—an official stance from the community on this matter?

pedrobaeza · 2026-03-16T16:24:17Z

Hi @rrebollo @marcos-mendez indeed, this is an ongoing debate, and OCA will pronounce on this when all the considerations are taken into account, as you know this is not an easy one. Very skilled and good people like @etobella are with that.

Of course, apart from this, the net-etiquette is global, and flooding a lot of PRs with this AI reviews without first asking, seems not appropriated, and more if the results are not of a proven quality. It's always best to start with a controlled experiment of short scope than to scale this to a level where old OCA fellows can be upset.

marcos-mendez · 2026-03-16T17:11:24Z

Hi @rrebollo @pedrobaeza,
Thank you both for the honest feedback. You're right — I should have started with a smaller, controlled experiment rather than scaling it without prior discussion.
I've already stopped the automated reviews as requested by Enric and Tom, and I'm joining the contributors mailing list to participate in the policy discussion the Governance Working Group is developing.
For context: the tool was designed with transparency in mind — every comment explicitly stated it was AI-generated, which model was used, and where the source code is hosted. But I understand that transparency alone doesn't justify the approach without community consensus first.
I appreciate your patience and I look forward to contributing to a clear standard that works for everyone.
Best regards,
Marcos

brian10048 · 2026-04-09T17:26:43Z

/ocabot migration fieldservice_account_payment

brian10048

/ocabot merge nobump

OCA-git-bot · 2026-04-09T17:31:39Z

What a great day to merge this nice PR. Let's do it!
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1489-by-brian10048-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

OCA-git-bot · 2026-04-09T17:40:34Z

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 840169f. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

murtuzasaleh and others added 30 commits December 31, 2025 07:46

[WIP][12.0][ADD] fieldservice_account_payment

0db176b

[FIX] fieldservice_account_payment

83c823a

[FIX] fieldservice_account_payment

a1a549c

[FIX] fieldservice_account_payment

e5969aa

[IMP] fieldservice_account_payment

2513c4a

[IMP] Improved code

8b6bf52

[FIX] fieldervice_account_payment

b414e66

[FIX] fieldservice_account_payment

c871f67

[FIX] fieldservice_account_payment

6c6d6d5

Update fieldservice_account_payment/models/account_payment.py

0bcd21f

Co-authored-by: Daniel Reis <dreis@opensourceintegrators.com>

fieldservice_account_payment 12.0.1.0.1

4bcd48e

[FIX] fieldservice_account_payment

a1835a4

fieldservice_account_payment 12.0.1.1.0

fed86d3

[IMP] fieldservice_account_payment: black, isort, prettier

8fe71a2

[MIG] fieldservice_account_payment: Migration to 13.0

984fef2

[14.0][MIG] fieldservice_account_payment

1728d60

[UPD] README.rst

0dfc1a3

[UPD] Update fieldservice_account_payment.pot

c4625ed

Added translation using Weblate (Italian)

ff617d2

Added translation using Weblate (Spanish (Argentina))

ebacdc1

[15.0][FIX] Travis

ecd5129

[15.0][MIG] fieldservice_account_payment

52bc1d4

[UPD] Update fieldservice_account_payment.pot

013a5e5

[UPD] README.rst

c6a0f86

[UPD] README.rst

4c2691d

[FIX] fieldservice_account_payment:

a5a0d7a

inject `default_customer_id` in context in tests to stick to the required fields in `fsm.location` in `fieldservice_account_analytic` wrong inbound_payment_method_line on bank journal

rrebollo added 2 commits December 31, 2025 07:46

[IMP] fieldservice_account_payment: pre-commit auto fixes

787defb

[MIG] fieldservice_account_payment: Migration to 16.0

f7c4671

rrebollo force-pushed the 16.0-mig-fieldservice_account_payment branch from cb82dc2 to f7c4671 Compare December 31, 2025 14:58

rrebollo marked this pull request as ready for review December 31, 2025 14:58

rrebollo mentioned this pull request Dec 31, 2025

[17.0] [MIG] fieldservice_account_payment #1490

Open

edescalona approved these changes Jan 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

OCA-git-bot added this to the 16.0 milestone Apr 9, 2026

OCA-git-bot mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2026

Migration to version 16.0 #963

Open

48 tasks

brian10048 approved these changes Apr 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

OCA-git-bot added the bot is merging ⏳ label Apr 9, 2026

OCA-git-bot merged commit c36c6a6 into OCA:16.0 Apr 9, 2026
5 of 7 checks passed

OCA-git-bot added merged 🎉 and removed bot is merging ⏳ labels Apr 9, 2026

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[16.0] [MIG] fieldservice account payment#1489

[16.0] [MIG] fieldservice account payment#1489
OCA-git-bot merged 32 commits intoOCA:16.0from
BinhexTeam:16.0-mig-fieldservice_account_payment

rrebollo commented Dec 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

edescalona left a comment •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

rrebollo commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

pedrobaeza commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

marcos-mendez commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

brian10048 commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

brian10048 left a comment

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

14 participants

Conversation

rrebollo commented Dec 31, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

edescalona left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

rrebollo commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

pedrobaeza commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

marcos-mendez commented Mar 16, 2026

Uh oh!

brian10048 commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

brian10048 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

14 participants

rrebollo commented Dec 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

edescalona left a comment •

edited

Loading