[IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment #199

jaeschwa · 2024-08-27T08:29:19Z

Purpose: Hairdressers need a more flexible way to manage their appointments. Often, certain services, like a 3-hour brushing, only require their attention for a portion of the time, leaving gaps that could be utilized for other tasks.

Solution: The appointment system has been updated to allow splitting an appointment into two segments with a break in between. This allows the hairdresser to free up time for other tasks while ensuring the customer’s can now book in those break.

Implementation: Added a "break" field in the appointment type setup. Upon booking, the system now creates three appointments: a parent appointment that is sent to the customer and two child appointments representing the active time blocks needed by the hairdresser. These child appointments are linked and adapted to reflect the overall booking, allowing the 1.5-hour gap to be free for other tasks.

task-4100134

Help the hair salon to hanlde cases where a task can be break down in 2 parts. The initial appointment is break down in 2 new appointment separeted by a break. task-4100134

The working hours related to the contracts of the employe must be in the same time zone as the appointment. Otherwise this leads to conflict in the timeshifts availible. So now both are on Brussel timezone. task-4100134

In the hair salon the reminder were applied to the child also however we don't want to have reminder on the parent and on the child so the worker does not have too much notifications. Reminder are kept in the parent calendar.event. task-4100134

vava-odoo

Hello @jaeschwa
Thanks for your work on this! It looks promising.
I still have quite a few comments on this. We may need to discuss it further at some point.
Cheers

hair_salon/data/appointment_type.xml

hair_salon/demo/hr_employee.xml

hair_salon/data/base_automation.xml

hair_salon/data/ir_ui_view.xml

vava-odoo · 2024-09-02T07:36:22Z

hair_salon/data/ir_actions_server.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<odoo>


you probably need to handle records (and loop), not record

Not necessary.

vava-odoo · 2024-09-02T07:55:36Z

hair_salon/data/base_automation.xml

+        <field name="name">Delete Sub Appointment</field>
+        <field name="model_id" ref="calendar.model_calendar_event"/>
+        <field name="action_server_ids" eval="[(6, 0, [ref('delete_subpart_main_calendar_event_server_action')])]"/>
+        <field name="trigger">on_unlink</field>


I don't see the logic with all these unlink. For example, I just tried to unlink the base appointment, none of the "[PART]" ones was archived...

You should delete them.

vava-odoo

Still a few comments. I think UX can be improved with a checkbox and maybe add constrains like end>=start

hair_salon/data/base_automation.xml

hair_salon/__manifest__.py

vava-odoo · 2024-09-05T13:13:36Z

hair_salon/data/ir_ui_view.xml

+                    <field name="x_appointment_part_2" string="Part 2" invisible="not x_appointment_part_2"/>
+                    <field name="x_appointment_part_2" invisible="not x_appointment_part_2"/>


Two times? 👀 🤔
Fun fact is that runbot complains about it

vava-odoo · 2024-09-05T13:19:00Z

hair_salon/data/base_automation.xml

+        <field name="model_id" ref="calendar.model_calendar_event"/>
+        <field name="action_server_ids" eval="[(6, 0, [ref('delete_subpart_calendar_event_server_action')])]"/>
+        <field name="trigger">on_create_or_write</field>
+        <field name="filter_domain">[("name", "not ilike", "PART 1"), ("name", "not ilike", "PART 2"), ("user_id", "!=", False)]</field>


Check should be on other fields (x_parent_id or x_appointment_part_2), not on name

How can we do this since it is for the creation? There is no parent nor appointment before this.

That's the point. Those fields should be empty.

Then you will have a cascade effect.

vava-odoo · 2024-09-05T13:19:10Z

hair_salon/data/base_automation.xml

+        <field name="model_id" ref="calendar.model_calendar_event"/>
+        <field name="action_server_ids" eval="[(6, 0, [ref('delete_subpart_main_calendar_event_server_action')])]"/>
+        <field name="trigger">on_unlink</field>
+        <field name="filter_domain">[("name", "ilike", "PART 1"), ("user_id", "!=", False)]</field>


I cannot find a condition that would work.
This is used to delete subpart, but what condition differs the PART 1 from the PART 2?

hair_salon/data/ir_ui_view.xml

vava-odoo · 2024-09-05T13:51:30Z

hair_salon/data/ir_actions_server.xml

+        event2_vals = {
+                'name': "[PART 1]" + record.name ,
+                'start': start_time,
+                'stop': start_time + datetime.timedelta(hours=x_break_start),
+                'allday': record.allday,
+                'user_id': record.user_id.id,
+                'x_parent_id': record.id,
+                'alarm_ids' : [],
+                'partner_ids': [record.partner_ids[0].id],
+                'appointment_type_id':record.appointment_type_id.id,
+
+        }


Isn't it shorter to duplicate the original one and edit?
For example here the location is not provided

All theses fields would need to be changed except maybe the user_id and the appointment_type_id.
But we will need to duplicate so +1 line. What would be the advantage of shorter it? Because this is for format but could be written in 1 line.

vava-odoo · 2024-09-05T14:00:33Z

hair_salon/data/base_automation.xml

+        <field name="trigger">on_unlink</field>
+        <field name="filter_domain">[("appointment_type_id", "!=", False)]</field>
+    </record>
+    <record id="delete_subpart_calendar_event" model="base.automation">


I wonder if this whole logic wouldn't benefit from adding an on_delete strategy on the new m2o fields that you create (like cascade)

I'll need more explaination.

vava-odoo

We're getting close to something

hair_salon/data/base_automation.xml

vava-odoo · 2024-09-06T08:06:21Z

hair_salon/data/ir_actions_server.xml

+    <record id="delete_subpart_main_calendar_event_server_action" model="ir.actions.server">
+        <field name="child_ids" eval="[(6, 0, [ref('break_booking_server_action')])]"/>
+        <field name="code"><![CDATA[parent_record = env['calendar.event'].browse(record.x_parent_id)
+parent_record.x_appointment_part_2.unlink()


waht about part_1?

You can only delete first part tot delete both, otherwise I cannot find a conditions.

vava-odoo · 2024-09-06T08:07:38Z

hair_salon/data/ir_actions_server.xml

+        <field name="code"><![CDATA[x_break_start = record.x_break_start
+x_break_end = record.x_break_end
+appointment_duration = record.duration
+
+start_time = record.start
+end_time = record.stop


Not sure it's worth to declare intermediate variables

Maybe not useful. Do you want it to be removed?

vava-odoo · 2024-09-06T08:07:54Z

hair_salon/data/ir_actions_server.xml

+        'appointment_type_id':record.appointment_type_id.id,
+
+}
+part_1 = env['calendar.event'].create(event2_vals)


Can't you create in batch?

Is it worth it for 2 records?

hair_salon/data/ir_actions_server.xml

vava-odoo · 2024-09-06T08:09:35Z

hair_salon/data/ir_ui_view.xml

+                <xpath expr="//field[@name='location']" position="before">
+                    <field name="x_appointment_part_2" string="Part 2" invisible="not x_appointment_part_2"/>
+                    <field name="x_parent_id" invisible="not x_parent_id"/>
+                </xpath>


What about part_1?

We have to chose either how to avoid cascade effect?

vava-odoo · 2024-09-06T08:15:50Z

hair_salon/data/ir_ui_view.xml

+                    <field name="x_break_start" invisible="x_parent_id" widget="float_time"/>
+                    <field name="x_break_end" invisible="x_parent_id" widget="float_time"/>


Suggested change

<field name="x_break_start" invisible="x_parent_id" widget="float_time"/>

<field name="x_break_end" invisible="x_parent_id" widget="float_time"/>

<field name="x_break_start" invisible="x_parent_id or not x_break" widget="float_time"/>

<field name="x_break_end" invisible="x_parent_id or not x_break" widget="float_time"/>

Breaking the view

hair_salon/data/ir_ui_view.xml

vava-odoo · 2024-09-06T08:21:47Z

hair_salon/data/ir_model_fields.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
+<odoo>
+    <record id="x_break_end_appointment_model" model="ir.model.fields">


We should maybe make sure that those float are reset to 0 if the user unchecks x_break. What do you think?
For that, I'd move the field to a compute (not readonly and stored), with the python dealing with this only case.

vava-odoo · 2024-09-06T08:22:58Z

hair_salon/data/base_automation.xml

+        <field name="model_id" ref="calendar.model_calendar_event"/>
+        <field name="action_server_ids" eval="[(6, 0, [ref('delete_subpart_calendar_event_server_action')])]"/>
+        <field name="trigger">on_create_or_write</field>
+        <field name="filter_domain">[("name", "not ilike", "PART 1"), ("name", "not ilike", "PART 2"), ("user_id", "!=", False)]</field>


That's the point. Those fields should be empty.

jaeschwa added 9 commits August 23, 2024 14:47

[IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment

88da549

Help the hair salon to hanlde cases where a task can be break down in 2 parts. The initial appointment is break down in 2 new appointment separeted by a break. task-4100134

fixup! [IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment

540c380

fixup! [IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment

274cfbf

fixup! [IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment

57a4568

fixup! [IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment

e864803

[FIX] hair_salon: According tz of employe and appointment

70451d8

The working hours related to the contracts of the employe must be in the same time zone as the appointment. Otherwise this leads to conflict in the timeshifts availible. So now both are on Brussel timezone. task-4100134

fixup! [FIX] hair_salon: According tz of employe and appointment

29156db

fixup! [FIX] hair_salon: According tz of employe and appointment

5ba1750

[IMP] hair_salon: Removing reminder

22a6d3a

In the hair salon the reminder were applied to the child also however we don't want to have reminder on the parent and on the child so the worker does not have too much notifications. Reminder are kept in the parent calendar.event. task-4100134

vava-odoo requested changes Sep 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

jaeschwa force-pushed the saas-17.4-imp-hairdresser-scju branch from 709b7dc to 094bda5 Compare September 5, 2024 11:05

vava-odoo requested changes Sep 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

jaeschwa force-pushed the saas-17.4-imp-hairdresser-scju branch from 094bda5 to 706f499 Compare September 6, 2024 07:40

vava-odoo reviewed Sep 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

fixup! [IMP] hair_salon

8ac3fce

jaeschwa force-pushed the saas-17.4-imp-hairdresser-scju branch from 706f499 to 8ac3fce Compare September 6, 2024 15:20

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment #199

[IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment #199

jaeschwa commented Aug 27, 2024

vava-odoo left a comment

vava-odoo Sep 2, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 5, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 2, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 5, 2024

vava-odoo left a comment

vava-odoo Sep 5, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 5, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 6, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 5, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 5, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 5, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo left a comment

vava-odoo Sep 6, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 6, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 6, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 6, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 6, 2024

jaeschwa Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 6, 2024

vava-odoo Sep 6, 2024

		@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
		<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
		<odoo>

		<field name="x_appointment_part_2" string="Part 2" invisible="not x_appointment_part_2"/>
		<field name="x_appointment_part_2" invisible="not x_appointment_part_2"/>

		<field name="x_break_start" invisible="x_parent_id" widget="float_time"/>
		<field name="x_break_end" invisible="x_parent_id" widget="float_time"/>

[IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment #199

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[IMP] Hairdresser: Spliting the appointment #199

Conversation

jaeschwa commented Aug 27, 2024

vava-odoo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vava-odoo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vava-odoo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment