Skip to content

[18.0][MIG] sale_validity_auto_cancel: Migration to 18.0#3493

Merged
OCA-git-bot merged 10 commits into
OCA:18.0from
HeliconiaIO:18.0-mig-sale_validity_auto_cancel
Jan 27, 2026
Merged

[18.0][MIG] sale_validity_auto_cancel: Migration to 18.0#3493
OCA-git-bot merged 10 commits into
OCA:18.0from
HeliconiaIO:18.0-mig-sale_validity_auto_cancel

Conversation

@BhaveshHeliconia

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

JordiMForgeFlow and others added 9 commits May 8, 2025 14:50
… SO functionality by adding new field to contact

[17.0][IMP] sale_validity_auto_cancel: Extend the auto cancel expired SO functionality by adding new field to contact

[17.0][IMP] sale_validity_auto_cancel: Extend the auto cancel expired SO functionality by adding new field to contact
Currently translated at 100.0% (13 of 13 strings)

Translation: sale-workflow-17.0/sale-workflow-17.0-sale_validity_auto_cancel
Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/sale-workflow-17-0/sale-workflow-17-0-sale_validity_auto_cancel/it/
@BhaveshHeliconia BhaveshHeliconia force-pushed the 18.0-mig-sale_validity_auto_cancel branch 2 times, most recently from 07a0928 to dd1373c Compare May 9, 2025 09:12
@BhaveshHeliconia BhaveshHeliconia force-pushed the 18.0-mig-sale_validity_auto_cancel branch from dd1373c to e3d5e8e Compare July 23, 2025 10:55
@rousseldenis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/ocabot migration sale_validity_auto_cancel

@anthonissen-a

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FYI: New PR #4022 is based on this PR.

@rousseldenis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FYI: New PR #4022 is based on this PR.

@anthonissen-a Usually, it is better to do a PR with the change on @BhaveshHeliconia repository than doing a new PR here.

@rousseldenis

rousseldenis commented Nov 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@BhaveshHeliconia Do you mind if we switch to #4022 ?

@BhaveshHeliconia

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@BhaveshHeliconia Do you mind if we switch to #4022 ?

Why would I mind? I don’t. If there’s a newer PR that works better and provides an improved approach, I’m happy to switch to that one.

@marielejeune marielejeune 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.

LGTM (code review)

@StephaneMangin

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@BhaveshHeliconia Do you mind if we switch to #4022 ?

Why would I mind? I don’t. If there’s a newer PR that works better and provides an improved approach, I’m happy to switch to that one.

I commented to go further on this refactoring (i didn't created an other PR, you're will suffice i presum. But if you want me to propose a new one to replace the current one please tell me)

@BhaveshHeliconia

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@BhaveshHeliconia Do you mind if we switch to #4022 ?

Why would I mind? I don’t. If there’s a newer PR that works better and provides an improved approach, I’m happy to switch to that one.

I commented to go further on this refactoring (i didn't created an other PR, you're will suffice i presum. But if you want me to propose a new one to replace the current one please tell me)

If there are no major refactors, please suggest the changes here. Otherwise, feel free to create a new PR for the refactoring—I’m fine with either approach.

@StephaneMangin

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@BhaveshHeliconia Do you mind if we switch to #4022 ?

Why would I mind? I don’t. If there’s a newer PR that works better and provides an improved approach, I’m happy to switch to that one.

I commented to go further on this refactoring (i didn't created an other PR, you're will suffice i presum. But if you want me to propose a new one to replace the current one please tell me)

If there are no major refactors, please suggest the changes here. Otherwise, feel free to create a new PR for the refactoring—I’m fine with either approach.

Ok. I take it back and I'll propose a new PR for the refactoring then. Thanks

@yvaucher

yvaucher commented Jan 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@StephaneMangin @BhaveshHeliconia to me both works as #4128 seems to include all commits of this PR + one commit

  1. We can either merge this PR and then proceeds @StephaneMangin as a new change request
  2. or consider [18.0][REF] sale_validity_auto_cancel: increase extendability #4128 as the new migration PR

But, as this was used by @StephaneMangin we can consider it was used and tested by him and is valid already and has enough review/testing to be merged right now, while #4128 still needs a couple of reviews.

@yvaucher

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I proceed as 1 after a little chat with @StephaneMangin

@yvaucher

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

/ocabot merge nobump

@OCA-git-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What a great day to merge this nice PR. Let's do it!
Prepared branch 18.0-ocabot-merge-pr-3493-by-yvaucher-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit 0615e9e into OCA:18.0 Jan 27, 2026
6 of 7 checks passed
@OCA-git-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 4d54a56. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants