Add delivery check on contact mechanism

Extend party.contact_mechanism with a shipping usage in order to select the right contact for shipping.

Source: https://discuss.tryton.org/t/party-sale-delivery-contact-mechanism/3671

assigned to @dotbit

added 1 deleted label

1. match party.contact_mechanism boolean field with party.address: delivery.
2. account_invoice implements invoice boolean inside party.py. stock implements delivery boolean inside shipment.py. Using shipment.py.
3. class ContactMechanism in account_invoice/party.py has @classmethod def usages(cls, _fields=None): I do not understand what this does. Not including similar code in shiptment.py

added 1 deleted label and removed 1 deleted label

https://codereview.tryton.org/320581002/

Works in trytond 5.8. In trytond 5.9 the tree view does not display checkboxes data correctly. Also invoice checkbox does not display correctly. Does somebody know about this or should I file an issue?

added stock type::feature labels

@ced asked to also add usage of delivery field for contact_mechanism in this issue.

review320581002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/320581002/#ps335421002

review320581002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/320581002/#ps320581003

review320581002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/320581002/#ps330171002

review320581002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/320581002/#ps302981002

review320581002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/320581002/#ps309011002

review320581002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/320581002/#ps343511011

review320581002 updated at https://codereview.tryton.org/320581002/#ps324951002

New changeset 22c80034a51f by Dimitrios Josef Moustos in branch 'default':
Add delivery usage to contact mechanism
https://hg.tryton.org/modules/stock/rev/22c80034a51f

added 1 deleted label and removed 1 deleted label

closed

New changeset e86df0710e21 by Cédric Krier in branch 'default':
Add delivery usage to contact mechanism
https://hg.tryton.org/tryton-env/rev/e86df0710e21

mentioned in issue #10019 (closed)

mentioned in issue #10016 (closed)