In base/res_partner.py, _fields_view_get calls _fields_view_get_address that could calls again
_fields_view_get in case of address_view_id is specified. That leads to issue in base_address_city
because the _fields_view_get_address method will replace two times the city field and then, we get
a view with two city_id fields.
see #16870 for screenshots
Since the new views, the field parsing for m2o returns an object with
id and display_name. If the given value to parse is a string, it is
supposed that this is an ID. This was breaking the domain selector
widget which should allow strings as name-strings of m2o values.
That function is called when computing related fields in onchange mode.
The new implementation makes a direct access to the cache's implementation.
opw-772303
We clear the input field when clicking 'Create and Edit' to ensure that
the field is empty if the user chooses to cancel the record creation. If
a record is indeed created, then the field value will still be updated.
It seems to randomly save a bad value into the cache for star_date(time) field.
For already impacted database, it can be easily fixed with a simple update.
update calendar_event set start_datetime=start, stop_datetime=stop where allday = 'f';
update calendar_event set start_date=start, stop_date=stop where allday = 't';
Than can cause errors for google synchro.
Before this fix, if a (non-registered) user tried to unsubscribe an
address *not registered*, they'd get an unsub link, click on it, and
get a "Invalid or expired confirmation link." message, usually
wondering what the bloody hell happened.
Provide a clearer message in that case.
Observed via google sync, for some events being moved around during
sync the stop_datetime ends up being before the start_datetime failing
the sync. Not (explicitly) reading the computed fields from the old
record properly recomputes them during copy.
Underlying issue linked to (stored) computed fields when multiple
fields are computed by the same method *and* the creation provides a
subset of these fields explicitly: depending on the order in
which *recompute* iterates the fields, it's possible that some of the
fields provided explicitly get extracted (from the cache) before
fields not-provided trigger a recomputation (and overwrite) of
computed fields.
In this case `recompute` iterates [start_datetime, start_date,
stop_date, stop_datetime], if `start_datetime` and `stop_datetime` are
provided explicitly to create, first recompute will check for
`start_datetime`, find it in the cache and extract it, then it checks
for `start_date`, does not find it in the cache, calls
`_compute_dates` which writes all four fields, then it extracts the
recomputed `start_datetime`, creating an incoherence: `start_datetime`
is the one from the old event while `stop_datetime` is the one from
the update/computation. This may lead to invisible corruption if the
event is moved forwards (e.g. creates a multi-day event) and triggers
a validation error if the event is moved backwards (stop_datetime is
now before start_datetime).
ping @rco-odoo multi-field computes may need some special handling
with respect to invalidations & sequencing & the like (e.g. check
their caching as a unit or something).
OPW-771886
when having a tax with multiple children (grouped tax) if we use it in the reconciliation
widget while creating a new line, not all taxes children were taken into account.
Problem occured in the MRP Production wizard (with a consumed
product tracked by serial number). The opened record is a new
record, and its one2many has 2 default rows that are prefilled.
If the user edited one of the quantities in those rows, and set
an invalid value instead (e.g. a letter), the row was removed
without notice when it was focused out. This was because the
model wasn't aware that a change has been done on the record,
and as the record was flagged as new, it was simply abandonned.
The one2many default get code used to meddle with basic_model's res_ids
manually, which ended up desynchronizing the data and res_ids fields
of the list representation of the one2many values.
This commit solves the issue by using the proper mechanisms of the
basic_model, that is creating a proper datapoint for those ids.
Steps to reproduce the original issue:
- Install sale_mamangement, mrp and purchase
- Create a product
- In the Inventory tab, in Routes, uncheck Buy
- Check and then uncheck back any other route than Buy
- Get a traceback because we are looking for a record with a given
res_id in the list data but since they are desynchronized, data
is empty at that point even though res_ids is not.
Christophe Simonis