[10.0] shopinvader.partner: switch to ondelete=restrict

[alexis-via]

I propose to switch the link between res.partner and shopinvader.partner to ondelete='restrict' instead of 'cascade', to avoid the situation where someone deletes a partner that has an account on shopinvader without being conscious of it.

[rousseldenis]

Makes sense !

[simahawk]

makes sense, but at the same time I'm thinking if we shouldn't handle this on the application side w/ a constraint + ctx flag to bypass. What if we really want to delete the binding? Eg: removing the user from the shop but keep the partner?

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #563 into 10.0 will increase coverage by 1.24%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             10.0     #563      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.36%   89.61%   +1.24%     
==========================================
  Files         125      142      +17     
  Lines        3162     3735     +573     
==========================================
+ Hits         2794     3347     +553     
- Misses        368      388      +20

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
shopinvader/models/shopinvader_partner.py	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
shopinvader_delivery_carrier/controllers/main.py	80% <0%> (-5.72%)	⬇️
shopinvader/services/cart.py	87.93% <0%> (-3.44%)	⬇️
shopinvader/models/shopinvader_category.py	95.77% <0%> (-2.96%)	⬇️
shopinvader/services/service.py	77.5% <0%> (-2.17%)	⬇️
shopinvader_delivery_carrier/services/cart.py	95.55% <0%> (-1.46%)	⬇️
shopinvader/services/abstract_mail.py	88.63% <0%> (-1.16%)	⬇️
shopinvader/models/shopinvader_product.py	89.36% <0%> (-0.44%)	⬇️
product_stock_state/models/product_product.py	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
shopinvader_image/hooks.py	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
... and 43 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d4c0deb...fe41752. Read the comment docs.

[rousseldenis]

makes sense, but at the same time I'm thinking if we shouldn't handle this on the application side w/ a constraint + ctx flag to bypass. What if we really want to delete the binding? Eg: removing the user from the shop but keep the partner?

Normal partner will remain as no unlink() has been implemented in shopinvader.partner to do so on res.partner (e.g.: same behaviour for product.product).

[shopinvader-git-bot]

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

[sebastienbeau]

/ocabot merge minor

[Cedric-Pigeon]

/ocabot merge minor

[shopinvader-git-bot]

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 10.0-ocabot-merge-pr-563-by-Cedric-Pigeon-bump-minor, awaiting test results.

[shopinvader-git-bot]

It looks like something changed on 10.0 in the meantime.
Let me try again (no action is required from you).
Prepared branch 10.0-ocabot-merge-pr-563-by-Cedric-Pigeon-bump-minor, awaiting test results.

[shopinvader-git-bot]

It looks like something changed on 10.0 in the meantime.
Let me try again (no action is required from you).
Prepared branch 10.0-ocabot-merge-pr-563-by-Cedric-Pigeon-bump-minor, awaiting test results.

[shopinvader-git-bot]

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 93819ce. Thanks a lot for contributing to shopinvader. ❤️