[18.0][REM] partner_type_base: now incompatible with partner_firstname because of PR #2263#2266
Draft
[18.0][REM] partner_type_base: now incompatible with partner_firstname because of PR #2263#2266
Conversation
CRogos
force-pushed
the
18.0-rem-partner_type_base
branch
from
70c2f1c to
fd37a9e
Compare
legalsylvain
added a commit
to grap/partner-contact
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2026
legalsylvain
added a commit
to grap/partner-contact
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2026
AEstLo
pushed a commit
to AEstLo/partner-contact
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2026
AEstLo
pushed a commit
to AEstLo/partner-contact
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Beause of #2263 there are now two modules with the same attribute name (is_individual). Therefore I prefer to remove this module recently introduced in #1905 before it get used.
... maybe there will be a new attempt in 19.0
@remi-filament @legalsylvain @NL66278