Skip to content

[19.0][MIG] edi_mail_import_oca#229

Open
etobella wants to merge 5 commits into
OCA:19.0from
dixmit:19.0-mig-mail
Open

[19.0][MIG] edi_mail_import_oca#229
etobella wants to merge 5 commits into
OCA:19.0from
dixmit:19.0-mig-mail

Conversation

@etobella

@etobella etobella commented Feb 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Depends on #215

@simahawk simahawk left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Interesting approach! Thanks!

Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/models/edi_exchange_record.py Outdated
Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/models/edi_exchange_type.py Outdated
Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/readme/DESCRIPTION.md
Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/models/edi_exchange_record.py Outdated
Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/models/edi_exchange_record.py Outdated
Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/views/edi_exchange_type.xml Outdated
Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/models/edi_exchange_type.py Outdated
@etobella etobella force-pushed the 19.0-mig-mail branch 2 times, most recently from 8b6c81b to 82e92fb Compare February 4, 2026 08:31
@etobella

etobella commented Feb 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@simahawk After your comments, I do agree that the best approach would be to set everything on the backend and do the same thing we do with Storage.

Also, I improved REadmes and information inside the backend to make it easier to handle (actually, it would be nice to include similar information in other modules to make it easier for users. Thanks for your comments, IMO they improved the solution.

image

Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/views/edi_backend.xml Outdated
return values

def _mail_exchange_type_pending_input_domain(self):
"""Domain for retrieving input exchange types for emails."""

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would add some more conventional constraint here.
What if we add specific type of backend Email and we rely on the fact that exc types refer to that type.
I would make it more clear from the configuration point of view.

not custom_values.get("type_id")
and not backend.full_mail_exchange_type_id
):
types = self.env["edi.exchange.type"].search(

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if we rely on the fact that we can have multiple files in an email and multiple types configured, we should support multiple creation of records.

Hence, here we should collect all new record values and call super on each set of values at the end.
Also, each record should be related to a single parent record (conventionally I would use the 1st one).

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, I understand the idea, however, we cannot do that, as the message_new should return just one record and is attaching some extra information... however, I will find a solution for that. don't worry 😉

Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/models/edi_exchange_record.py Outdated
Comment thread edi_mail_import_oca/models/edi_exchange_record.py Outdated
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Jun 14, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants