Have:
- Model A with a x2m to model B
- Object A with multiple objects B in x2m (that will be sorted)
- On the list view of model A, click on a column to sort by a field
- this field shall not exist in B
- open a record A (towards form view)
Before this commit, the sorting of the x2m crashed, because the key orderedBy was propagated
Due to commit e713ed2a69
After this commit, it doesn't crash
OPW 1913133
closesodoo/odoo#29094
Define a x2m tree view with a default_sort including more than 1 field to order the list against
Before this commit, the second field was never used
After this commit, it is used
OPW 1909785
closesodoo/odoo#28840
Steps:
- open a modal form view from tree view first line and make a change
- open a modal from the second line and make a change
- open the second line back: the change were lost
In a given number of conditions (a many2one inside the form view, there
is a one2many in the form view not inside the tree view, ....) this
happened because:
- when we save the first line, we get onchange data for the second one
- this onchange data can't be applied before second line is loaded, but
it is saved so it can be applied if second line is ever opened
- when the second line is opened the saved change is applied => OK
- when the second line is opened a second time the saved change is
applied again, possibly overwriting posterious change => BAD
With this changeset, when the record with unapplied onchange is loaded
for the first time, the unapplied onchange is applied only once.
Added test without the change failed with:
- only 1 turtle for second partner (result: 0 not 1)
- second partner turtle is Michelangelo (result: "" not "Michelangelo")
opw-1846820
closes#28644
When a view is loaded, it checks which fields it has to load.
In the case of a many2one, it could be the case that a context key is present in
one view and not in the other; if it happens, we should reload the data, as a
name_get result could vary.
opw 1891295
closesodoo/odoo#28298
Before this commit, when loading the data and calling the prostprocess,
the viewType was not correctly passed which could lead to broken
behaviour. For example, if one was to load a record from a list view
embedded in a form view, the viewtype passed was the list which
prevented to load the data from the form view.
OPW 1891295
closesodoo/odoo#28279
Suppose you select a customer for a sale order.
You type the beginning of his name "think", and a name_search is triggered
which finds matching results, with first result "Think Big Systems".
There are three ways to select it: click, enter or tab.
Now there can be a warning set on this customer
("Bad client, only accept cash", or "good client, offer discount").
In that case, clicking on tab would trigger the onchange displaying the warning,
but it would also set floating to true, which means a dialog to create client
"think" would appear.
This happens if the onchange is delayed, and thus the call to reset the floating
state is triggered only after the focusout completed, instead of before.
Coauthored with @aab-odoo
opw 1866619
opw 1874475
Suppose there is a one2many field embedded in a one2many,
(say we are viewing record A with one2many field B itself with a one2many C).
Furthermore, there is a second page of the one2many field B.
If an onchange is applied on B, then the server replies with a 1 command for all
B records attached to the currently viewed object A.
This includes a list of commands [[5], [4, C_id]*] for each B record,
in particular B records that are on the second page.
Since they are on the second page, they might not have been fetched by the
frontend; in that case the corresponding C_ids are thus unknown.
As a consequence, on save the frontend sends a command 0 to create the records
for all unknown C_ids.
Since it doesn't have any value to give to the 0 command, the row creation
usually crash in the backend.
Another wrong behaviour is fixed at the same time: if the server sends an update
on the list of C ids with 4 commands.
In that case, if the record has not been prefetched, we have no way to know
if the list changed or not.
To solve this, when we receive the 4 commands by the server, we send back 4
commands.
coauthored by @aab-odoo
opw 1835936
Let's assume a one2many A inside a form view, such that the one2many
views (list, not editable, and form) are defined inline, and there is an
onchange on A. There is another inline one2many B editable list
displayed in the inner form view (and B isn't in the list). There are
two records on the one2many A, both of them having one record in their
one2many B. Edit the first record of A, and edit it's subrecord in B.
Click on save. This triggers an onchange on A and the onchange returns a
command 5 (DELETE_ALL), and two commands 1 (UPDATE). Now edit the second
record of A, and simply close the dialog (e.g. 'Discard'). Save the main
record: the record in one2many B of the second record of A has been duplicated.
This occured because the code in BasicModel messed up information coming
from the onchange (UPDATE command) and from the read (performed when
opening the second record), thus producing a CREATE command instead of
an UPDATE one.
This rev. ensures to properly mix the read data with the onchange
result, by transfering the changes over the list datapoint created after
the read.
opw-1836785
closes#25330
Revision on b09f0c99
The intent of the previous commit was to no drop records in a list
on discard in the following cases:
- when they have been created from a `default_get`
- when they have been created from an `onchange` that result
from a `default_get`
Before the commit above, the kind of records that were abandoned
in those cases are stated as invalid, which happens when a record
has a required field that is empty.
The case of an `onchange` that is not involved in a `default_get`
was not considered in the fixes above. In fact, this is the intent
behaviour in most cases. However, if the items in the list are
created from such an `onchange`, we should not drop them.
This commit fixes the bug where records in a list that are created
from an `onchange` are wrongly abandoned. Here is the new logic to
abandon a record on discard in a list:
- the record that is marked as "do not abandon" should not be
abandoned;
- a record that is registered as a "not new addition" in the
list should not be dropped;
- a record that is registered as a "new addition" in the list,
and has been updated afterwards, should not be dropped;
- a record that is not new should not be dropped;
opw-806650
Have a model A with a o2m to B.
In the list have a field B > m2o > C
Also have a sequence field (widget handle) on B
Then Create a record A
Arrange yourself to have two new records B popping right away (through an onchange)
in the o2m. Their C field have to be empty
Resequence those two B lines with the handle
Before this commit, there was a traceback when trying to do an name_get on the C fields
Since both of them are empty, there is no record in the localData
Hence, no model. And also no records anyway, so no need to do a name_get
After this commit, there is no traceback, the name_get is avoided when no data is to be fetched
OPW 1853088
closes#24988
Model A has a o2m to model B
Model B has a m2o parent_id on B
In A's form, add a B item,
then in the m2o, create record
Save and New
Click on the m2o
Before this commit, the python crashed on name_search.
This was because we sent the virtual ids to it
After this commit, there is no crash
OPW 1850212
closes#24948
Have a decorated (conditional on field) editable list, with a default_order.
Have more records than the pager allows.
Add an item, and hit escape to cancel addition.
Before this commit, the cancellation crashed because the first record on the other page
was trying to evaluate the decoration for its row, which is wrong in the first place.
This was because creating a record increases the limit of the list, to be able to see the record
being created.
At cancellation though, that limit was never decreased.
After this commit, the whole flow happens without problem.
OPW 1844495
closes#24682
Revision on https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/9a9da5763b38a3bce54e9c4870af0032e38cacc3
The intent of the commit above was to no abandon records in a list on
discard when these records have been created from a `default_get`.
Also, the `default_get` may also perform an `onchange` that could create
more records. The records from this `onchange` must also be included in
the "do not abandon" rule.
However, the rule was too relax, so that any following `onchanges` from
a user interaction was also considered into this rule. As a result, it was
not possible to abandon such records.
With this fix, we restrict the rule to `default_get` (already the case) and
only the `onchange` right after a `default_get`. Any record created on an
`onchange` from a user interaction after a `default_get` should be abandoned
on discard.
Representation of creating the list:
savepoint
|----------|-----------|-------||--------|------->
create default_get onchange1 onchange2
record in the list is created by default_get or onchange1
=> do not abandon on discard
record in the list is created by onchange2
=> abandon on discard
Before this commit, some records in a list did not show the name of their
many2one fields.
This case occurs when the records in the list are created from a default_get,
and the records do not fit in a single page. In that case, the records in the
first page correctly display the names of their many2one fields, but not the
records in the other pages.
Fixes#24547
Before this commit, when a list contains records with many2one fields that
contain the same values, duplicate ids were passed to the server on rpc
`name_get`.
For instance, if 40 records in a list refer to a Unit of Measure with id "1"
whose displayed_name is "unit(s)", the server receives a long list of ids with
simply the value "1". Also, the server responds with a list of displayed_name,
in this case a list of 40 strings "unit(s)".
With this commit, we always pass unique ids to the server on rpc `name_get`.
When sorting records according to a many2one field in a list view
embedded in a form view, the js would sort according to their ids,
in a seemingly arbitrary order.
Thus sorting records according to a field with values in ("a", "b", "c")
could be sorted as "a", "a", "c", "b" instead of "a", "a", "b", "c".
We make the comparison on the name of the field instead.
opw 1838860
Assume a one2many field inside a form, displaying field A in its
list view, and a field B in its (dialog) form view. Moreover, there
is an action button in the dialog, which updates the value of B.
Before this rev., B wasn't correctly reloaded when the button was
clicked, because the BasicModel reloaded the fields on the list
view (i.e. field A), whereas it should reload the fields in both
views.
This fix is twofold. First, we force the viewType to 'form' when
the record is reloaded, instead of the default ('list'), so that
fields in the form view are correctly reloaded. Second, when we
open the form view in the dialog, we add the fields of the list
view to the dict of fields of the form view, so that the form
is aware of those fields and can ask the model to reload them
(still without displaying them).
Fixes#24189
Have a One2Many
The views of that o2m define two inline views: the list and the form
in the list view, put a field that isn't in the form and used in a domain
Try to add an item to the list
The form pops up
Fill in the data and save & close
Before this commit:
It crashed when evaluating the domain on a field using the field that is not in the form
After this commit:
Subviews share their fields in a special object on the parent record
In our case, the form view checks in that shared resource if the fields it is supposed to initialize
are there.
Hence, this flow doesn't crash anymore
OPW 1837511
closes#24350
The initial rev. odoo/odoo@2d3ecf2 that was supposed to handle this use case
was in fact only dealing with one command as default value for nested x2m, not
more.
The basic model can now handle multiple commands.
Closes#24241
In the reference widget, the focus was always on the input (many2one) even
though the first select (with the model) was not set.
Thanks to @kaerdsar for the original PR.
Partially closes#24070
Before this rev., a crash occured when a default_get returned a
command 0 (CREATE) for a one2many, with a value for a date(time)
field (e.g. [0, false, {some_date_field: '2018-12-08'}]). This
was because the related values (inside the commands) weren't
parsed. This only impacted date and datetime fields, for which the
parsing converts the string into a moment instance.
Fixes#23672
Have the create_date field displays on a one2many list
Try to add a record onto the list
Before this commit, when the virtual record is added onto the list
it crashes because the datetime field is undefined and cannot be parsed
After this commit, It doesn't crash though the value would have to wait the save on the main record
to be updated (because it is the create_date)
OPW 1834250
closes#24097
Consider the following scenario involving a one2many list (non
editable) inside a form view:
- click on 'Add an item', a model opens,
- fill the fields and click on 'Save & Close',
- reopen the freshly created record,
- maybe make some changes (this is optional, but makes sense),
- click on 'Save & New',
- fill the fields and click on 'Save & Close',
-> the second created record isn't added to the list.
The problem comes from the fact that when the dialog is opened for
the second time (in this case by clicking on a record), the 'save'
handler registers an 'UPDATE' command. While this is correct for
the 'Save & New' click (as we update an existing record), this
isn't for the second record which doesn't exist yet, and thus
requires an 'ADD' command.
This rev. ensures that the two cases are handled in the 'save'
handler given to the dialog.
OPW 1829723
Before this commit, when some records were created from an `onchange`,
we have the following weird behaviour:
Suppose that this record has some required fields that are empty.
When we click on this record, then somewhere else, the record
disappears from the list.
This is because the records contains invalid fields, and it is wrongfully
assuming that the record to be discarded comes from "Add an item".
A previous commit [1] fixed a bit this issue with `default_get`, but since
it relied on a fragile heuristic, we decide to apply the correct fix with
this commit.
[1] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/b09f0c99be2b13d33986414485556d87da186d65
Have a form view with a O2M.
The model at the 'many' end has a reference field
Have a record of the second model display in a modal
(by clicking on a record in the o2m list)
Before this commit:
The field reference was not filled up
This was because the fields to fetch on the modal creation weren't correctly set.
Obvisouly, it also created problem when trying to change the record on the modal:
spawning tracebacks because the reference field was not present in the local datas
After this commit:
The display of the reference field is as expected both in the original form and in the modal
OPW 1829822
closes#22468closes#23896
Have a list with readonly modifiers on at least one column.
Have the first record of the list be readonly as computed by the modifier
Create and edit a second record
Enter a value in the cell and hit TAB
Before this commit:
The focus on the targetted cell was lost and the rendering of the cell was in mode readonly
This was because the baseMode of the modifier dict was applied to one and only one node (== one column) and hence to *all* the records
After this commit:
The rendering and keyboard TAB navigation works as expected in the list editable
The baseMode concept has been sharpened and each cell now has one
OPW-1816569
OPW-1824979
closes#23809closes#22859closes#23436
* [FIX] web: Make accessible with keyboard the delete button on o2m fields
Currently, the delete button in one2many fields (trash icon) is not
reachable when using the keyboard, because it's neither a link, nor a
button or any other interactable HTML element, but a `<span>`.
This change causes that button to be an actual HTML button keeping the
same appearance, so it may be reached when using the keyboard.
* [FIX] web: Modify test to expect button instead of span as o2m trash icon
Since buttons to delete records in o2m fields (the trash icon) were
changed from `<span>` to `<button>` to be able to access them with the
keyboard, the test need to be modified so it expect the new element
type and doesn't break.
Have a model with a m2m (field A)
this m2m has also a m2m (and displayed as m2m tags in the view) (field AA)
Have a domain on field A, to trigger the search view selection
Click on add an item
Select everything in the modal, making sure that there is more than 40 records
Click on Select
Before this commit:
There was a traceback indicating the local data did not contain records >= 40
This was because the internal data repository was constrained by a limit
After this commit:
We adapt the limit of the local data repository and there is not traceback
OPW 1823400
When we discard an element, we want to make sure that the new state is
not corrupted by previous user operations. In our case, we possibly had
a limit and an offset values modified by the user.
This could lead to unpleasant situations, with incorrect data displayed
on the form view.
Note that this actually fixes a new bug introduced by commit
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/e7fab234201e357da52c3576ad2e8fc9ceee9359
(this is the commit that introduces the tempLimitIncrement attribute)
The issue here is quite simple. If we are editing a multipage one2many
field, then we click on the pager, we need to properly unselect the
current row.
If we do not do that, then we can enter invalid data. For example,
assume that there is a readonly field. We click on add, it creates a
(virtual) record with no value for that field. When we click on the
pager, we select the next page, and bypass all validation.
When we are in the process of adding a record, we do not want to update
the pager count. The reason is that if the user is at the limit (so,
1-40/40, no pager visible), then click on add, there will be a pager
shown with 1-40/41. Now, imagine that the record currently being added
as a required field, and the user clicks on the pager. In that case, we
need to discard the newly added record (bringing the total back to 40),
then move to next page, which does not exist anymore.
So, to fix this issue, we simply consider that a record being added
does not count, from the point of view of the pager.
A big problem with the o2m edition happens when the user has a full page
(so, in general, 40 records) and click on add.
If the o2m is in editable="bottom" mode (which is actually a really
common usecase), then the next record will be added at the end.
However, since we have a limit of 40, it will immediately go to the next
page.
The effect is even weirder when there is a required field in the tree
view. In that case, the new record appears correctly, the user can edit
it, then, as soon as the required fields are set, it will immediately
disappear from the current screen.
In this commit, we have a really simple solution: we simply increase the
limit in this case. An interesting thing is that it is actually temporary:
when the user goes to the next page, the limit is back to its original
value (due to the pager click: it resets the value to what the pager knows).
In some cases, the footer in a form view dialog could be duplicated.
The reason was that the form view was rerendered completely, footer
included, by the renderer, out of the formcontroller control (it is the
formcontroller's job to move the footer buttons to the footer).
A possible fix is to work on the form renderer to make it aware that the footer
buttons are expected to be only rendered once, but it has the disadvantage to
be a fix specific to this issue, and any other form view behaviour with some
side effects may have the same issue.
This commit tries to prevent the form view from rerendering itself
completely in those cases. This also has the disadvantage of possibly
not being a complete fix, if some edge cases are missed. However, I
have the feeling that we still want to avoid rerendering the full view
if possible.
Let's assume a one2many displayed over several pages with a default
order such that a record, say R, that would normally be on page 1
is actually on another page. Moreover, there is an onchange on that
one2many which converts all commands 4 (LINK_TO) into commands 1
(UPDATE), which is standard in the ORM.
When the first line of the one2many was edited, the record R was
fully loaded, whereas it shouldn't have been (as it is not on the
current page). So basically, a useless read was performed.
Moreover, if there was an x2many field in the one2many list, a
crash occurred because relational data of R that shouldn't have
been read wasn't postprocessed by the BasicModel.
The useless read occurred because the one2many subrecords weren't
correctly sorted before checking if some of them/some of their
fields should be read. This is not the case anymore.
OPW-1816800
Let's assume a one2many list view inside a form view, displaying
a single char field A. There is an onchange on the form view
returning a command 0 (CREATE) for the one2many. The command 0 only
specifies a value for field A. The one2many list isn't editable, so
when a sub-record is clicked, it is open in a form view (in a
dialog). In this form view, an x2many field B is displayed in a sub
list or kanban view.
Before this rev., it crashed when the user tried to open the
created one2many sub-record (returned by the onchange) in the form
view, because of the presence of the x2many field B, which wasn't
correctly processed by the BasicModel (its value was undefined,
whereas it must be a valid, empty, dataPoint).
Moreover, the limit of the x2many field B wasn't set, so a pager
was displayed as soon as it contained at least one record.
Fixes#22050
When onchange RPCs return a command 4 (LINK TO), the res_id of the
record to link is given, and the BasicModel has to read the fields
in the view for that record. When one of those fields is an x2many
(for instance, displayed with widget many2many_tags), the
subrecords in the relation must be read as well (at least their
display_name).
Before this rev., this last part wasn't done by the BasicModel, and
as a consequence, the many2many_tags widget was always empty, even
though there were records in the relation.
Same thing applied to reference fields, but this is way more
uncommon.
This rev. ensures that x2manys and reference fields are correctly
fetched in this scenario.
Before this commit, there is an issue with one2many lists with records that
have been created on 'default_get': if the record has a required field that
is empty, when the user clicks on this empty required field and then somewhere
else, the record is removed from the list.
The cause of this bug is that these records have invalid field changes, here
the required field that is empty. As a consequence, it checks whether the
record is "new", and if so, removes it visually from the editable list.
(Note: a record is "new" when it is not stored in DB).
This behaviour is expected when discarding records created from "Add an item".
However, that is not intended for records that have been created as default
items of the list. These records are still considered as "new" items, because
they are not stored in DB, but they should stay in the list on discard.
This commit solves the issue by making an additional check before assuming
that the record for which we discard changes comes from "Add an item":
if the record in the list has been created before user interacts on the list
(in other words, the record has been added in the list when the user accesses
it), then we should not remove the record from the list, even though the record
has some invalid fields from the savepoint (e.g. empty required).
opw-806650
From a form view (say Bill of materials)
Edit the form
Click on a bom line
Click on the external button that makes the product form pop up
change the order of suppliers on that product
Before this commit, a JS traceback was raised
This was because the changing object was not present in the localData that the Model object holds
or more accurately, it was not the **right** model object that was targetted
and this was due to the propagation of the resequence event
After this commit, no error is thrown, and the resequencing works as expected
OPW 807196
A `default_get` for a x2many field can return a new list of commands for one of
its x2many field, like
[[0, 0, {
'groups_id': [[6, 0, [1, 2, 3]]],
}]]
where [1, 2, 3] is a list of existing ids.
This use case was not correctly handled by the BasicModel because
`_makeDefaultRecord` was not recursive.
Closes#22401
When creating a record with many default values, it could happen that
the number of ids returned by the default get (or onchange) exceeds the
limit for the form view.
For example, we can see the issue in the expenses list view. We can
increase the limit in the pager, to a value higher than 40. Then,
clicking on select all, then on 'Submit to manager' in the action menu
will result in a traceback.
The Submit to manager action will trigger a new action with a context key
'active_ids' with a large number of ids. After that, the web client
will execute the server actions, which will return a new action with a
context key 'default_expense_line_ids' with a bunch of ids. Then, it
will attempt to create a form view. This will call the
makeDefaultRecord method in the basic model. This method will generate
the commands for the one2many, for all ids, but will only load the 40
first sub records. After, it will attempt to apply the onchanges, with
some code that assumes that all operations of type 'ADD' correspond to a
local datapoint.
In this commit, we fix the code to properly work with operations of type
ADD with a res_id, but with no id. In that case, we simply generate a
command 'LINK_TO', since the value has not been changed.
opw 804370
When fetching x2manys in a x2many, the basic model did not properly sort
the internal data structure before fetching the data. This is usually
not an issue, except when we have an order which is different from the
order of the res_ids. In that case, it can cause crash in some
conditions, because the results from the fetchx2manybatched were applied
to the wrong datapoint.
To reproduce this issue, some specific conditions needs to be met. I
think that it is easier to refer to the test, instead of trying to
explain that.
In this commit, we properly sort the data at the correct place. Note
that this probably solves a bunch of other related issues, caused by the
fact that the internal structure was corrupted.
Cleaning dead code from these commits that have been reverted:
41fe7f9d1113d026b226b136b4477aaaf9f1f638#diff-54fd886cc58f994ad518ee72df4d3edeR50
2a5488619da22cfd901963dd141e722b195e82ab#diff-f96b339a9374f74489f1f98755e9787bL9253
41fe7f9d1113d026b226b136b4477aaaf9f1f638#diff-86d6d41b5bb7499bf055258d05549d59R3111
With these final changes, we hope to stop the many issues that have occured with
binary fields, from these commits:
255e8ca3d97813a8e71441fe7f9d112a5488619d
What remains is the format of binary fields in list views without widgets,
which shows the bin_size instead of the base64 string representation...
... Rest assured, the computation is in JS, so there are no 'bin_size'
shenaningans!
Revision on 41fe7f9d11
This commit intended to reduce the network load when reading records with
binary fields. This was made possible by enforcing the contextual key
`bin_size` to be set for records with binary fields.
However, it is causing some issues (see #22222, #22231) which are:
- write with bin_size:true generates a traceback
- read/search_read with bin_size:true breaks some images
on some views (e.g. base.view_partner_form)
Since the problems outweight the gain of these changes, we revert them.
Field widgets now have a key 'context' that let them
extend the context of the dataPoint (e.g. list).
In particular, widgets on binary fields enforce the contextual
item {bin_size: True}, so that the server gives the size of the
binary field as its value, instead of its content.
This change on binary fields reduces network load when accessing
a view with binary fields.
Lucas Perais (lpe)