[16.0][MIG] account_payment_tier_validation: backport to v16 by quirino95 · Pull Request #859 · OCA/account-payment

quirino95 · 2025-07-18T12:21:01Z

No description provided.

SirPyTech

Thanks for the PR!
Please check the migration process that is used in OCA for migrating to this major version: https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Migration-to-version-16.0.
This can be adapted to a backward-migration (like this one, from 18.0 to 16.0) adapting a few steps, for instance

git format-patch --keep-subject --stdout origin/16.0..origin/15.0 -- $module | git am -3 --keep

in this case should be

git format-patch --keep-subject --stdout origin/16.0..origin/18.0 -- $module | git am -3 --keep

Also note that commits should be squashed according to https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Merge-commits-in-pull-requests.
Right now the commits are

and some of them should be squashed together.

Please fix the tests because right now they are failing:

If the CI fails then this PR can't be merged.
The first failure is:

2025-07-18 12:37:19,765 330 ERROR odoo odoo.addons.account_payment_line.tests.test_account_payment_line: FAIL: TestAccountPaymentLines.test_01_customer_payment
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/__w/account-payment/account-payment/account_payment_line/tests/test_account_payment_line.py", line 201, in test_01_customer_payment
    self.assertTrue(new_payment.is_reconciled)
AssertionError: False is not true

(from https://github.com/OCA/account-payment/actions/runs/16370675214/job/46258021642?pr=859#step:8:273)
I know it's not the module you are migrating, but if this PR is causing it to fail you have two options:

(best) adapt the code so that it doesn't cause a failure in other modules
mark both modules as not compatible and split the CI so that they are tested independently.
See https://github.com/OCA/oca-addons-repo-template/blob/d1483d585edc2323e8faba77c9294e5e2a4176b8/copier.yml#L147-L153:

Are there in this repo modules that don't get along with their friends? If so, list them here (YAML format) and they will be tested in separate jobs.
Beware, if rebel modules should stay separated in groups, you should join them with commas, which could be misinterpreted by YAML.
Example: ["rebel_module_1,rebel_module_2", even_more_rebel_module]

You might want to look at related implementations like:

account_payment_order_tier_validation for 16.0 https://github.com/OCA/bank-payment/tree/4432cddb0c747298be581f71ec883197c19c7c94/account_payment_order_tier_validation
a previous attempt of implementing this same module: #664

SirPyTech · 2025-07-21T09:08:33Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py


    _tier_validation_manual_config = False
+
+    def action_post(self):


This method is overwriting core's method defined in https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b0be89a67d0ce458db99f4331e21ed56d3c4774a/addons/account/models/account_payment.py#L934 without calling it with super, this breaks the inheritance chain.
Please add a call to super's method.

SirPyTech · 2025-07-21T09:11:19Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+                        "the recipient bank account must be manually validated. "
+                        "You should go on the partner bank account of %(partner)s"
+                        "in order to validate it.",
+                        method_name=self.payment_method_line_id.name,


Suggested change

method_name=self.payment_method_line_id.name,

method_name=payment.payment_method_line_id.name,

quirino95 · 2025-07-22T15:14:34Z

Thank you @SirPyTech !
I did format-patch and squashed commits. I've updated also behavior in account_payment.py by taking code from the "previous attempt", and as consequence all tests are now ok!

SirPyTech

chore: Please check again the commit history, right now it's

but according to https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Migration-to-version-16.0 it should be:

All commits that come from git format-patch (mentioned in #859 (review)), merged according to https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Merge-commits-in-pull-requests#mergesquash-the-commits-generated-by-bots-or-weblate
An automatic commit generated by pre-commit
The [MIG] commit with the needed manual changes to make the module work in 16.0

Right now there are some commits after the [MIG] one that shouldn't be there.

@alexeirivera87 we are reviving your old PR #664, would you like to have a look?

SirPyTech · 2025-07-23T08:11:32Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_move.py

question: I don't think this file is needed in 16.0 (maybe not even in 18.0), could you please check and remove it eventually?

Confirm, it's not needed. Removed.

SirPyTech · 2025-07-23T08:11:52Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py


    _tier_validation_manual_config = False
+
+    def action_post(self):


SirPyTech · 2025-07-23T08:12:31Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+                        "the recipient bank account must be manually validated. "
+                        "You should go on the partner bank account of %(partner)s"
+                        "in order to validate it.",
+                        method_name=self.payment_method_line_id.name,


SirPyTech · 2025-07-23T08:18:15Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

chore: This file (and most of the module) is an almost exact copy of https://github.com/OCA/account-payment/pull/664/files#diff-9cef5e44f9cd3a54a978109fc6e89d61feb1d100206e820022a24efbf5e2a3ca, please at least add the author @alexeirivera87 as a co-author (see https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/committing-changes-to-your-project/creating-and-editing-commits/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors) of the commit.
And I dare say they also deserve an author spot in the module itself.

Of course, I've added Alexei as co-author in my last commit.

SirPyTech · 2025-07-23T08:29:20Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+    _inherit = ["account.payment", "tier.validation"]
+    _state_from = ["draft"]
+    _state_to = ["posted"]
+    _cancel_state = "canceled"


suggestion: This is already declared in tier.validation (https://github.com/OCA/server-ux/blob/a6a3fb51c0f85f2031da1aba09328c1deb3b2fb4/base_tier_validation/models/tier_validation.py#L34), is it really needed here?

SirPyTech · 2025-07-23T08:30:53Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+class AccountPayment(models.Model):
+    _name = "account.payment"
+    _inherit = ["account.payment", "tier.validation"]
+    _state_from = ["draft"]


suggestion: This is already declared in tier.validation (https://github.com/OCA/server-ux/blob/a6a3fb51c0f85f2031da1aba09328c1deb3b2fb4/base_tier_validation/models/tier_validation.py#L32), is it really needed here?

SirPyTech · 2025-07-23T08:33:38Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+    _cancel_state = "canceled"
+
+    _tier_validation_manual_config = False
+


question: comparing this file with https://github.com/OCA/account-payment/pull/664/files#diff-9cef5e44f9cd3a54a978109fc6e89d61feb1d100206e820022a24efbf5e2a3ca I see here we are missing the override of _get_under_validation_exceptions, was it causing any issues? Otherwise I'd say we can keep it.

No issues keeping that method.

SirPyTech · 2025-07-23T08:42:32Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+    def _get_need_validation(self):
+        """
+        Needed because state is a related field not stored,
+        _compute_need_validation (field need_validation) in model
+        tier_validation, does not properly work when executing button
+        "Validate"
+        """
+        self.ensure_one()
+        if isinstance(self.id, models.NewId):
+            return False
+        tiers = self.env["tier.definition"].search([("model", "=", self._name)])
+        valid_tiers = any([self.evaluate_tier(tier) for tier in tiers])
+        return (
+            not self.review_ids
+            and valid_tiers
+            and self._context.get("validate_in_progress")
+        )


suggestion: This is a slightly modified copy (the only change being the context usage) of an old version of _compute_need_validation (https://github.com/OCA/server-ux/blob/abf06d7e9365080987a2181205cbf017da736671/base_tier_validation/models/tier_validation.py#L216-L225):

def _compute_need_validation(self): for rec in self: if isinstance(rec.id, models.NewId): rec.need_validation = False continue tiers = self.env["tier.definition"].search([("model", "=", self._name)]) valid_tiers = any([rec.evaluate_tier(tier) for tier in tiers]) rec.need_validation = ( not rec.review_ids and valid_tiers and rec._check_state_from_condition() )

Right now the code has been improved (https://github.com/OCA/server-ux/blob/a6a3fb51c0f85f2031da1aba09328c1deb3b2fb4/base_tier_validation/models/tier_validation.py#L251-L271):

def _compute_need_validation(self): for rec in self: if isinstance(rec.id, models.NewId): rec.need_validation = False continue tiers = ( self.env["tier.definition"] .with_context(active_test=True) .search( [ ("model", "=", self._name), ("company_id", "in", [False] + rec._get_company().ids), ] ) ) valid_tiers = tiers.filtered(lambda x: rec.evaluate_tier(x)) requested_tiers = rec.review_ids.filtered( lambda x: x.status != "pending" ).mapped("definition_id") new_tiers = valid_tiers - requested_tiers rec.need_validation = new_tiers and rec._check_state_from_condition()

, for instance with multi-company management, could you please update this code accordingly?

Or even better, we could try adding a depends_context to an override of _compute_need_validation so that we won't need to keep this copy updated, what do you think?

I went with the update of the code, after several attempts to get override to work. As mentioned in docstring, _compute_need_validation in this case doesn't work properly, so I preferred to keep _get_need_validation, improved with multi-company management.

That's fine, I understand it's not easy to adapt an override to work with the new context value.

But what about the last few lines of the above method?

valid_tiers = tiers.filtered(lambda x: rec.evaluate_tier(x)) requested_tiers = rec.review_ids.filtered( lambda x: x.status != "pending" ).mapped("definition_id") new_tiers = valid_tiers - requested_tiers rec.need_validation = new_tiers and rec._check_state_from_condition()

I see they are still missing in the latest code of this PR:

valid_tiers = tiers.filtered(lambda x: self.evaluate_tier(x)) return ( not self.review_ids and valid_tiers and self._context.get("validate_in_progress") )

Here your reply from #859 (comment):

using the "new code", behavior changes and method doesn't work anymore as expected. No ValidationError is throwed so validation is always ok.
Looking at server-ux module, i saw that status field in tier.review in 18.0 has a new waiting selection, missing in 16.0. I did some attempts to fix behavior with new code but without success.
Anyway, all tests are ok and the behavior is the expected one, exactly as in v18.

What I am proposing has nothing to do with 18.0: the additional code has been added in 16.0 (where there is no waiting status`) with OCA/server-ux@a64e791, in the commit itself and its PR OCA/server-ux#928 you can find the reason behind it.

From a more generic point of view: the implementation in this model is kind of a needed hack for tier validation to work in a model where state field is related, so some of the usual methods in tier.validation do not get triggered properly.
The needed hack consists of using the context validate_in_progress to recognize when we need to validate the record: this is then used in places like _check_state_conditions_custom, while in tier.validation it is done in _check_state_conditions and _check_state_from_condition.
So this model has to re-implement all the places where such methods are used and:

if there is _check_state_from_condition then use the context validate_in_progress

if there is _check_state_conditions then use _check_state_conditions_custom instead

This has been done where needed: write and need_validation methods (see https://github.com/OCA/server-ux/blob/23e96d195dd78187789f42264a206350e470b01c/base_tier_validation/models/tier_validation.py).
As I suggested in #859 (comment), doing this with overrides would be more maintainable, but since it's technically harder, it's ok to copy/paste the methods.

If the copy-paste is not in sync (like in this piece of code), that would cause an unexpected behavior because payments validation would behave differently than any other tier-validated model (like invoices, when account_move_tier_validation is installed).

SirPyTech

issue: The commits history looks duplicated:

Have a look at the 1st commit of this PR (b07ee98), the digest in the readme is 0baca...:
.
The first commits in 18.0 for this module are (note that they are in reversed order: latest one is above the others):

According to https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Merge-commits-in-pull-requests they should all be merged together, so the digest of the resulting commit should be the one in the latest commit (7851a7e):
That is: 6e4f14....

So the bot's commit has not been merged, it has been skipped.

I'm afraid other commits might be affected too, please have a look.

SirPyTech · 2025-07-28T08:58:55Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_move.py

SirPyTech · 2025-07-28T08:59:31Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

SirPyTech · 2025-07-28T08:59:46Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+    _cancel_state = "canceled"
+
+    _tier_validation_manual_config = False
+


SirPyTech · 2025-07-28T09:01:50Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+    _inherit = ["account.payment", "tier.validation"]
+    _state_from = ["draft"]
+    _state_to = ["posted"]
+    _cancel_state = "canceled"


SirPyTech · 2025-07-28T09:02:16Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+class AccountPayment(models.Model):
+    _name = "account.payment"
+    _inherit = ["account.payment", "tier.validation"]
+    _state_from = ["draft"]


SirPyTech · 2025-07-28T09:10:35Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+    def _get_need_validation(self):
+        """
+        Needed because state is a related field not stored,
+        _compute_need_validation (field need_validation) in model
+        tier_validation, does not properly work when executing button
+        "Validate"
+        """
+        self.ensure_one()
+        if isinstance(self.id, models.NewId):
+            return False
+        tiers = self.env["tier.definition"].search([("model", "=", self._name)])
+        valid_tiers = any([self.evaluate_tier(tier) for tier in tiers])
+        return (
+            not self.review_ids
+            and valid_tiers
+            and self._context.get("validate_in_progress")
+        )


That's fine, I understand it's not easy to adapt an override to work with the new context value.

But what about the last few lines of the above method?

valid_tiers = tiers.filtered(lambda x: rec.evaluate_tier(x)) requested_tiers = rec.review_ids.filtered( lambda x: x.status != "pending" ).mapped("definition_id") new_tiers = valid_tiers - requested_tiers rec.need_validation = new_tiers and rec._check_state_from_condition()

I see they are still missing in the latest code of this PR:

valid_tiers = tiers.filtered(lambda x: self.evaluate_tier(x)) return ( not self.review_ids and valid_tiers and self._context.get("validate_in_progress") )

SirPyTech · 2025-07-28T09:13:52Z

account_payment_tier_validation/tests/test_tier_validation.py

-        payment.amount = 100
-        payment.action_post()
-        self.assertEqual(payment.state, "in_process")
+        self.assertEqual(payment.state, "draft")


question: Looks like the in_process status of 18.0 corresponds to the posted status in 16.0, so why is draft used here instead?

Updated test using posted instead of draft (added also the two lines before in order to don't break tests.

Can't reply to previous thread (_get_need_validation), so wrote response here: using the "new code", behavior changes and method doesn't work anymore as expected. No ValidationError is throwed so validation is always ok.
Looking at server-ux module, i saw that status field in tier.review in 18.0 has a new waiting selection, missing in 16.0. I did some attempts to fix behavior with new code but without success.
Anyway, all tests are ok and the behavior is the expected one, exactly as in v18.

Can't reply to previous thread (_get_need_validation)

The thread is #859 (comment)

Updated test using posted instead of draft (added also the two lines before in order to don't break tests.

👍

SirPyTech

Now the commits history is fine 👏

SirPyTech · 2025-07-30T09:08:34Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+    def _get_need_validation(self):
+        """
+        Needed because state is a related field not stored,
+        _compute_need_validation (field need_validation) in model
+        tier_validation, does not properly work when executing button
+        "Validate"
+        """
+        self.ensure_one()
+        if isinstance(self.id, models.NewId):
+            return False
+        tiers = self.env["tier.definition"].search([("model", "=", self._name)])
+        valid_tiers = any([self.evaluate_tier(tier) for tier in tiers])
+        return (
+            not self.review_ids
+            and valid_tiers
+            and self._context.get("validate_in_progress")
+        )


Here your reply from #859 (comment):

using the "new code", behavior changes and method doesn't work anymore as expected. No ValidationError is throwed so validation is always ok.
Looking at server-ux module, i saw that status field in tier.review in 18.0 has a new waiting selection, missing in 16.0. I did some attempts to fix behavior with new code but without success.
Anyway, all tests are ok and the behavior is the expected one, exactly as in v18.

What I am proposing has nothing to do with 18.0: the additional code has been added in 16.0 (where there is no waiting status`) with OCA/server-ux@a64e791, in the commit itself and its PR OCA/server-ux#928 you can find the reason behind it.

From a more generic point of view: the implementation in this model is kind of a needed hack for tier validation to work in a model where state field is related, so some of the usual methods in tier.validation do not get triggered properly.
The needed hack consists of using the context validate_in_progress to recognize when we need to validate the record: this is then used in places like _check_state_conditions_custom, while in tier.validation it is done in _check_state_conditions and _check_state_from_condition.
So this model has to re-implement all the places where such methods are used and:

if there is _check_state_from_condition then use the context validate_in_progress

if there is _check_state_conditions then use _check_state_conditions_custom instead

This has been done where needed: write and need_validation methods (see https://github.com/OCA/server-ux/blob/23e96d195dd78187789f42264a206350e470b01c/base_tier_validation/models/tier_validation.py).
As I suggested in #859 (comment), doing this with overrides would be more maintainable, but since it's technically harder, it's ok to copy/paste the methods.

If the copy-paste is not in sync (like in this piece of code), that would cause an unexpected behavior because payments validation would behave differently than any other tier-validated model (like invoices, when account_move_tier_validation is installed).

SirPyTech · 2025-07-30T09:19:43Z

account_payment_tier_validation/tests/test_tier_validation.py

-        payment.amount = 100
-        payment.action_post()
-        self.assertEqual(payment.state, "in_process")
+        self.assertEqual(payment.state, "draft")


Can't reply to previous thread (_get_need_validation)

The thread is #859 (comment)

SirPyTech · 2025-07-30T10:11:09Z

account_payment_tier_validation/tests/test_tier_validation.py

-        payment.amount = 100
-        payment.action_post()
-        self.assertEqual(payment.state, "in_process")
+        self.assertEqual(payment.state, "draft")


Updated test using posted instead of draft (added also the two lines before in order to don't break tests.

👍

quirino95 · 2025-07-31T08:11:39Z

Thank you Simone for the explanation. Now it's clearer for me, so I updated code.
I hope now everything is fine.

SirPyTech · 2025-08-01T07:41:11Z

account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py

+    def _get_need_validation(self):
+        """
+        Needed because state is a related field not stored,
+        _compute_need_validation (field need_validation) in model
+        tier_validation, does not properly work when executing button
+        "Validate"
+        """
+        self.ensure_one()
+        if isinstance(self.id, models.NewId):
+            return False
+        tiers = self.env["tier.definition"].search([("model", "=", self._name)])
+        valid_tiers = any([self.evaluate_tier(tier) for tier in tiers])
+        return (
+            not self.review_ids
+            and valid_tiers
+            and self._context.get("validate_in_progress")
+        )


quirino95 · 2025-08-01T13:02:40Z

After OCA/server-ux#1135, I had to change a couple of occurences of validated field, which not exists in server-ux for 16.0. I replaced it with validation_status = 'validated'

github-actions · 2025-11-30T12:47:12Z

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.

rvalyi · 2025-11-30T15:31:46Z

/ocabot merge nobump

OCA-git-bot · 2025-11-30T15:31:53Z

Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you.
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-859-by-rvalyi-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

Signed-off-by rvalyi

OCA-git-bot · 2025-11-30T15:35:27Z

@rvalyi your merge command was aborted due to failed check(s), which you can inspect on this commit of 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-859-by-rvalyi-bump-nobump.

After fixing the problem, you can re-issue a merge command. Please refrain from merging manually as it will most probably make the target branch red.

…s assertion in test

SirPyTech · 2025-12-01T08:38:54Z

Rebased to check merge failure

Co-authored-by: Alexei Rivera <alexeirivera87@gmail.com>

quirino95 · 2025-12-01T13:18:01Z

Fixed tests failure!

OCA-git-bot · 2025-12-07T13:00:02Z

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). 🤖

SirPyTech · 2025-12-09T08:57:21Z

/ocabot merge nobump

(from #859 (comment))

@rvalyi please try again

alexeirivera87 · 2025-12-11T22:12:14Z

@SirPyTech @quirino95

Thanks for considering my old PR

marcos-mendez

Automated Review -- Tests Failed

1. Root Cause

The test failure occurs because the account_payment_tier_validation module depends on base_tier_validation, which is not installed or available in the test environment. The error log shows that Odoo fails to load the registry due to a missing module dependency during button_install().

2. Suggested Fix

Ensure that base_tier_validation is included in the test environment or installed before running tests. In the __manifest__.py of account_payment_tier_validation, the dependency is correctly listed, but it seems the test setup (likely in odoo.tests.common.TransactionCase or similar) does not install the required modules.

Reference:

account_payment_tier_validation/__manifest__.py line 15: "depends": ["account", "base_tier_validation"]
The test environment must ensure base_tier_validation is installed prior to loading account_payment_tier_validation.

3. Additional Code Issues

a. Incorrect use of `self._get_company()`

In account_payment.py, the method _get_need_validation() uses self._get_company() which may not be defined or may not return expected results for all contexts.

File: account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py
Method: _get_need_validation()
Lines: Around line 70–73

Issue:
self._get_company() is not a standard Odoo method. It should be replaced with self.company_id or self.env.company for consistency and correctness.

Fix suggestion:
Replace:

self._get_company().ids

with:

self.company_id.ids

b. Improper handling of `NewId` in `_get_need_validation()`

The check if isinstance(self.id, models.NewId): is correct, but the logic may not be robust enough for all edge cases in tier validation flow.

File: account_payment_tier_validation/models/account_payment.py
Method: _get_need_validation()
Lines: Around line 67–69

Suggestion:
Add explicit logging or validation to ensure that new records are not processed through tier validation logic unless explicitly required.

4. Test Improvements

a. Add TransactionCase Tests

Use TransactionCase to test full workflow including:

Creation of payment
Tier definition creation
Validation request
Review and confirmation

b. Test with SavepointCase for Isolation

Use SavepointCase to test:

Tier validation behavior on existing vs new records
Validation status changes during write operations

c. Tagged Tests

Tag tests appropriately using @tag('post_install') or @tag('tier_validation') to ensure proper execution order and filtering in CI.

d. Specific Test Scenarios

Add test cases for:

Payment creation without tier definitions (should proceed normally)
Payment creation with tier definitions (should require validation)
Validation process with pending, rejected, and approved reviews
Write operation behavior when validation is required or not

Example Test Snippet:

def test_payment_validation_flow(self):
    # Create a tier definition for account.payment
    tier_def = self.env['tier.definition'].create({
        'model_id': self.env.ref('account.model_account_payment').id,
        'definition_domain': [('amount', '>', 100)],
    })
    # Create a payment
    payment = self.env['account.payment'].create({
        'amount': 200,
        'partner_id': self.env.ref('base.res_partner_1').id,
        'journal_id': self.env.ref('account.cash_journal').id,
    })
    # Request validation
    payment.action_request_validation()
    self.assertTrue(payment.validation_status, 'pending')

This ensures full coverage of the new logic and prevents regressions.

⚠️ PR Aging Alert: CRITICAL

This PR by @quirino95 has been waiting for 238 days — that is over 7 months without being merged or closed.
💤 No activity for 92 days. Has this PR been forgotten?

Every ignored PR is a contributor who might not come back. Review time matters. (OCA Aging Report)

Reciprocal Review Request

Hi everyone! I found some test failures on this PR and left detailed feedback above. I am happy to discuss or help debug. In the meantime, if any of you get a chance, I would appreciate a look at my open PR(s):

My open PRs across OCA:

Reviewing each other's work helps the whole community move forward. Thank you!

Environment via OCA Neural Reviewer: Minikube + K8s Job + oca-ci/py3.10-odoo16.0 | Odoo 16.0
Automated review by OCA Neural Reviewer + qwen3-coder:30b

rvalyi · 2026-03-14T06:27:08Z

/ocabot merge nobump

OCA-git-bot · 2026-03-14T06:27:15Z

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-859-by-rvalyi-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

Signed-off-by rvalyi

OCA-git-bot · 2026-03-14T06:28:40Z

@rvalyi your merge command was aborted due to failed check(s), which you can inspect on this commit of 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-859-by-rvalyi-bump-nobump.

After fixing the problem, you can re-issue a merge command. Please refrain from merging manually as it will most probably make the target branch red.

OCA-git-bot · 2026-03-14T06:34:20Z

@rvalyi your merge command was aborted due to failed check(s), which you can inspect on this commit of 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-859-by-rvalyi-bump-nobump.

After fixing the problem, you can re-issue a merge command. Please refrain from merging manually as it will most probably make the target branch red.

marcos-mendez · 2026-03-16T04:27:40Z

Hi @OCA-git-bot, thank you for taking the time to respond to our automated review! Your feedback is valuable and helps us improve.

We've logged this as an issue to review and improve our process: https://git.pop.coop/pop/oca-reviewer/issues/2

We'll work on addressing the points you raised.

Auto-reply by oca-feedback

SirPyTech · 2026-03-16T09:11:20Z

/ocabot merge nobump

Thanks you very much @rvalyi for trying to merge (ignoring AI review), the merge failed for the known issue mentioned in OCA/oca-addons-repo-template#333, we only have to update the repository template.

quirino95 force-pushed the 16.0-mig-account_payment_tier_validation branch from dc3aa85 to 4aaf1b3 Compare July 18, 2025 12:34

SirPyTech suggested changes Jul 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

quirino95 force-pushed the 16.0-mig-account_payment_tier_validation branch 5 times, most recently from c534c8c to d4bc558 Compare July 22, 2025 14:58

SirPyTech suggested changes Jul 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

quirino95 force-pushed the 16.0-mig-account_payment_tier_validation branch from d4bc558 to 2b37547 Compare July 24, 2025 13:04

SirPyTech suggested changes Jul 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

quirino95 force-pushed the 16.0-mig-account_payment_tier_validation branch from 2b37547 to a4feb43 Compare July 28, 2025 12:28

SirPyTech suggested changes Jul 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

quirino95 force-pushed the 16.0-mig-account_payment_tier_validation branch from a4feb43 to 89f0adc Compare July 31, 2025 08:07

SirPyTech approved these changes Aug 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

quirino95 force-pushed the 16.0-mig-account_payment_tier_validation branch 2 times, most recently from 0ea9e0a to 939b696 Compare August 1, 2025 13:00

github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Nov 30, 2025

rvalyi approved these changes Nov 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

OCA-git-bot added the approved label Nov 30, 2025

OCA-git-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2025

Merge PR #859 into 16.0

9995f4a

Signed-off-by rvalyi

OCA-git-bot added the bot is merging ⏳ label Nov 30, 2025

OCA-git-bot removed the bot is merging ⏳ label Nov 30, 2025

[ADD] account_payment_tier_validation

5418107

mymage and others added 3 commits December 1, 2025 09:38

Added translation using Weblate (Italian)

b0a08f4

[FIX] account_payment_tier_validation: fix incorrect validation_statu…

682a0a4

…s assertion in test

Added translation using Weblate (Portuguese (Brazil))

af1675a

SirPyTech force-pushed the 16.0-mig-account_payment_tier_validation branch from 939b696 to ed4ff70 Compare December 1, 2025 08:38

[MIG] account_payment_tier_validation: Backport to 16.0

febdd7b

Co-authored-by: Alexei Rivera <alexeirivera87@gmail.com>

quirino95 force-pushed the 16.0-mig-account_payment_tier_validation branch from ed4ff70 to febdd7b Compare December 1, 2025 13:08

github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Dec 7, 2025

OCA-git-bot added the ready to merge label Dec 7, 2025

marcos-mendez suggested changes Mar 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

OCA-git-bot removed approved ready to merge labels Mar 14, 2026

OCA-git-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 14, 2026

Merge PR #859 into 16.0

c55cdef

Signed-off-by rvalyi

OCA-git-bot added the bot is merging ⏳ label Mar 14, 2026

OCA-git-bot removed the bot is merging ⏳ label Mar 14, 2026


		_tier_validation_manual_config = False

		def action_post(self):

	method_name=self.payment_method_line_id.name,
	method_name=payment.payment_method_line_id.name,

		_cancel_state = "canceled"

		_tier_validation_manual_config = False

Uh oh!

Conversation

quirino95 commented Jul 18, 2025

Uh oh!

SirPyTech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

quirino95 commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

SirPyTech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SirPyTech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

quirino95 commented Aug 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading