[16.0][OU-ADD] payment

[remytms]

Changes:

• acquirer is now provider
• some fields and xmlids moved from payment to account_payment

Details in the upgrade_analysis_work file.

Testing is partial, because there is no migration script for the account module. Therefore the upgrade fails. But at least, the migration script for payment does not fail.

[remytms]

@legalsylvain Can you reference this PR with the OCABot ? :)

[legalsylvain]

/ocabot migration payment

[carmenbianca]

Are we sure about this? The user could have put modifications in these records that will not be carried over to the newly created records.

[remytms]

I'm pretty sure there is no change by the user on theses data. It contains data like this:

    <record id="payment_acquirer_adyen" model="payment.acquirer">
        <field name="name">Adyen</field>
        <field name="display_as">Credit Card (powered by Adyen)</field>
        <field name="image_128" type="base64" file="payment_adyen/static/src/img/adyen_icon.png"/>
        <field name="module_id" ref="base.module_payment_adyen"/>
        <field name="description" type="html">
            <p>
                A payment gateway to accept online payments via credit cards, debit cards and bank
                transfers.
            </p>
            <ul class="list-inline">
                <li class="list-inline-item"><i class="fa fa-check"/>Online Payment</li>
                <li class="list-inline-item"><i class="fa fa-check"/>Payment Status Tracking</li>
            </ul>
        </field>
        <!-- https://www.adyen.com/payment-methods -->
        <field name="payment_icon_ids"
               eval="[(6, 0, [
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_bancontact'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_maestro'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_mastercard'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_visa'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_discover'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_diners_club_intl'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_jcb'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_unionpay'),
               ])]"/>
    </record>

to

    <record id="payment_provider_adyen" model="payment.provider">
        <field name="name">Adyen</field>
        <field name="display_as">Credit Card (powered by Adyen)</field>
        <field name="image_128" type="base64" file="payment_adyen/static/description/icon.png"/>
        <field name="module_id" ref="base.module_payment_adyen"/>
        <!-- https://www.adyen.com/payment-methods -->
        <field name="payment_icon_ids"
               eval="[(6, 0, [
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_bancontact'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_maestro'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_mastercard'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_visa'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_discover'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_diners_club_intl'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_jcb'),
                   ref('payment.payment_icon_cc_unionpay'),
               ])]"/>
    </record>

[carmenbianca]

Users can absolutely modify these records.

In any case, currently after migration, you just get duplicates of everything:

> select id, name from payment_provider where cast(name->'en_US' as text) ilike '%mollie%';
+----+---------------------+
| id | name                |
|----+---------------------|
| 5  | {"en_US": "Mollie"} |
| 23 | {"en_US": "Mollie"} |
+----+---------------------+
SELECT 2

[remytms]

Hum, indeed. I did not watch other field of the model. I will look deeper at this.

Thanks for pointing this out. :)

[remytms]

I think that I fixed it. :)

Renamed xmlids, added payment_provider in noupdate_changes, and loaded it.

[stefan-tecnativa]

LGTM! As account has already been merged, this can go on as well? TT42266

@pedrobaeza

[pedrobaeza]

Hi, @remytms, thanks for the migration.

I have redone it in #4193 (as I can't push here) for being totally correct. Please take notes for other scripts you do of the following comments:

• No need to comment each line on the work file. If several of them apply the same comment, just group them and put the comment at the end of the block. It's also OK to reorder the lines to make the blocks larger.
• The same applies if there are non consecutive lines and both refers to the same action (model removed and model added for example): reorder them to go together in the same block with the same comment.
• There's no need anymore to use update_module_moved_fields. It's covered natively in OpenUpgrade till version 14, and by Odoo since them: https://github.com/OCA/openupgradelib/blob/d0aee908031876a95dc36c7a9a2c847186155aa2/openupgradelib/openupgrade.py#L3039-L3040
• There were some XML-IDs renamings that are not real, as they don't exist in target (Alipay, Ogone, etc). I have remove them.
• And for the remaining noupdate old records, you have to try to remove them with the corresponding method.
• For new noupdate records, there's nothing to do, so noupdate changes are not needed. They are new!
• And finally, for the noupdate changes, only real changes should be put. If not, any customization done by the user is lost, so better to keep changes at minimum.

[remytms]

Hi @pedrobaeza

Thanks for your comments. I take good note of your advice. :)