[14.0][FIX] shopinvader_membership subscribe

[acsonefho]

No description provided.

[sbidoul]

@acsonefho a little bit of explanation would not hurt ;)

So this fixes the following error:

RESTFULL call to url https://***/shopinvader/membership/226226/subscribe with method POST and params {'membership_product_id': 226226} raise the following error 500 Internal Server Error: subscribe() got an unexpected keyword argument 'membership_product_id'

[rousseldenis]

@acsonefho What's the status of this ??

[sbidoul]

LGTM. Test are red, though. Can you post a screenshot of the swagger ?

BTW, I take the opportunity to remind that these services exposing standard Odoo or OCA features that are not related to shopinvader don't need a dependency on shopinvader, they just need to depend on base_rest and use authenticated_partner_id in the service context. Which also mean they can go in OCA, like OCA/event#247 (event) and OCA/helpdesk#270 (helpdesk_mgmt).

[acsonefho]

LGTM. Test are red, though. Can you post a screenshot of the swagger ?

[sbidoul]

Do we need to keep the GET /{_id}/subscribe for backward compatibility ? If yes, can you please add a note in the docs saying it is deprecated. A GET must never have side effects.

[sbidoul]

And can you show a screenshot of the input form swagger is creating for the POST ? I'm not entirely fluent in cerberus :)

[acsonefho]

And can you show a screenshot of the input form swagger is creating for the POST ? I'm not entirely fluent in cerberus :)

Do we need to keep the GET /{_id}/subscribe for backward compatibility ?

I update the documentation. I update the GET with a deprecated (+ also add a warning into logs when this GET is used).

[sbidoul]

One last thing: I'd rather avoid using the wizard and call res.partner.create_membership_invoice() instead. The code will be easier to understand and the wizard will stay where it needs to stay (i.e. in the UI realm and not the business logic realm).

[rousseldenis]

@acsonefho

[github-actions]

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.