Skip to content

Conversation

@luisDIXMIT
Copy link
Contributor

@luisDIXMIT luisDIXMIT commented Sep 15, 2025

Migration script added. Four XML IDs are empty because I missed them in v18. I have to test it in a local database when my doubts have been solved.

@luisDIXMIT luisDIXMIT force-pushed the 18.0-ou_add-l10n_es_igic branch from 15e3c6e to c8006a6 Compare September 15, 2025 10:42
@pedrobaeza pedrobaeza added this to the 18.0 milestone Sep 15, 2025
@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

Have you checked if there's any need of XML-ID renaming of the existing taxes?

@luisDIXMIT
Copy link
Contributor Author

Have you checked if there's any need of XML-ID renaming of the existing taxes?

No, sorry. I will check. Thanks!

Copy link
Member

@etobella etobella left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Thanks

(["account_pymes_canary_296"], "account_pymes_296"),
(["account_pymes_canary_490"], "pgc_pyme_490"),
(["account_pymes_canary_551"], "pgc_pyme_551"),
(["account_pymes_canary_4707"], ""),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have to remove this and the following as they are doing nothing.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did this because I couldn’t find this in v18, so I don’t know what I must do. I added a comment in the description of this PR asking what I should do in this case. Is it a missing account, or should I mark it as removed?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this account doesn't make sense anymore.... it should be ported to the existent account account_common_canary_47071, but I am not sure which is the best way to handle this specific migration.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I found this, and I think it’s still valid. WDYT? https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1992-28829

(["account_full_canary_2553"], "account_full_2553"),
(["account_full_canary_257"], "account_full_257"),
(["account_full_canary_466"], "account_full_466"),
(["account_full_canary_4707"], ""),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't make sense: or you remove them, or you map to something, as keeping them this way won't make anything.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm with you on this, I'm just asking for help to know what to map it against, since there's nothing in 18. As I see we're all in the same situation and from what you mentioned, I can just leave it unmapped, so I'll do that and not block the topic any further. Thanks.

@luisDIXMIT luisDIXMIT force-pushed the 18.0-ou_add-l10n_es_igic branch from 31eccb2 to 36876d6 Compare October 28, 2025 08:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants