[19.0][MIG] edi_account_core_oca

[JasminSForgeFlow]

Standard Migration

@ForgeFlow

[Reyes4711-S73]

LGTM

[Segui-S73]

LGTM

[OCA-git-bot]

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

[JordiMForgeFlow]

@simahawk @etobella could this one get merged? thanks!

[etobella]

@JordiMForgeFlow as we are on a new migration, I think we should rename this module as edi_account_oca, the original one is not required anymore.

Can you handle the merge on openupgrade?

[etobella]

Not required anymore.

[JordiMForgeFlow]

@etobella then I assume we also have to merge the listeners added in #265 to this one right?

@JasminSForgeFlow could you attend the changes when possible?

[etobella]

Wait! I assumed that the other one had no code inside, if it has, we should not merge them, as this module should never require listeners, components or queue. maybe the right new should be "edi_account_listener_oca" and "edi_account_oca", however, I think it doesn't make sense to do it now.

[JordiMForgeFlow]

Exactly, the edi_account_oca is depending on component to add the listeners, just like edi_stock_oca or edi_purchase_oca. For me it is fine to keep it as it is then.

[etobella]

For me the names could be improved to avoid mistakes....

[JordiMForgeFlow]

@etobella so just to clarify, you would rename this one to "edi_account_oca" and #265 to "edi_account_listener_oca"? Then we should also align the other modules to use the same structure (edi_stock_oca, edi_purchase_oca,...)

[simahawk]

Hmm do we really need 2 modules?
It's probably time to align over a call on what we want to do once for all.
IMO we should finish #232 first and agree on a common way to handle events w/o components otherwise we will always have an half backed solution in the core and 2 ways to things everywhere.