Goal:
* Simplified modifiers to only have one way to define modifiers;
* Remove states attributes on python field;
* Use python expression in view `required`, `readonly`, `invisible`;
* More accurate validation of xml views.
This commit change the syntax to python expression. The next commit
will update/convert all xml views.
Before this commit:
* the `required`, `readonly` and `invisible` attributes can only have
values of `True`, `False`, 1, 0 or a python expression to use the
context;
* the `attrs` attribute define a dict. The key of this dict was
`required`, `readonly` and `invisible` and the values are the domain or
a string representing a domain to be evaluate as python expression.
This python expressions was evaluate by the javascript with view fields
and other contextual values as: context, uid, parent, active_id,
active_ids, active_model, allowed_company_ids, current_company_id.
* the `states` attribute in the view was a comma separated list of the
state. This list was combined with the `invisible` attribute;
* the `invisible` attribute on python field is used as default value;
* the `states` attribute on python field was dictionnary with state as
key and list of tuple. This structure was combined with `readonly` view
attribute.
* After combining, the resulting domains of the different attributes
`required`, `readonly` and `invisible` are evaluated with the values of
the fields. The `invisible` attributes is splitted into two use:
`invisible` and `column_invisible`.
After this commit:
* The attributes `required`, `readonly`, `invisible` and
`column_invisible` define python expression. This python expressions
are evaluate by the javascript with view fields and other contextual
values as: context, uid, parent, active_id, active_ids, active_model,
allowed_company_ids, current_company_id.
The domains can contains contextual value and will be evaluate by the
javascript.
```xml
<field name="field_a" readonly="not context.get('show_a')" attrs="{'readonly': [('field_b', '!=', False), ('field_c', '=', parent.c)]}"/>
<field name="field_b" states="draft"/>
```
will be replaced by
```xml
<field name="field_a" readonly="not context.get('show_a') or field_b and field_c == parent.c"/>
<field name="field_b" invisible="state != 'draft'"/>
```
Some inherited views will be modified differently in order to maintain
the previous behavior:
```xml
<field name="field_a" readonly="not context.get('show_a')" attrs="{'invisible': [('field_b', '!=', False)]}">
```
```xml
<field name="field_a" position="attributes">
<attribute name="attrs">{'readonly': [('field_c', '=', False)], 'invisible': [('field_d', '!=', '3')]}<attribute>
</field>
```
will be replaced by
```xml
<field name="field_a" readonly="not context.get('show_a')" invisible="field_b">
```
```xml
<field name="field_a" position="attributes">
<attribute name="readonly" add="(not field_c)" separator=" or "/>
<attribute name="invisible">field_d != 3<attribute>
</field>
```
Validation:
A stricter control is made on the level of the attributes (modifiers)
and the fields necessary for these. The use of the previous attributes
'attr' and 'states' triggers an error (these no longer exist after the
application of the migration script)
task-2495504
Part-of: odoo/odoo#104741
Steps to reproduce:
- Go to Contact-Configuration-Countries
- Remove the code of a country
- Create a new contact
- Select the country from which you deleted the code
- Put any vat number starting with country code you deleted
Issue:
Traceback
Cause:
in `_run_vat_test` we want to `country.code.lower()` -> country code does not exist
Solution:
Prevent the user to delete a country code by making the field required.
sentry-3923412146
closesodoo/odoo#113207
Signed-off-by: William André (wan) <wan@odoo.com>
This is about the same than
d6ad39abba
but with account_accountant installed
```
FAIL: TestFormCreate.test_create_res_partner
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/addons/base/tests/test_form_create.py", line 35, in test_create_res_partner
partner_form.property_account_payable_id = property_account_payable_id
File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/tests/common.py", line 2179, in __setattr__
assert not self._get_modifier(field, 'invisible'), \
AssertionError: can't write on invisible field property_account_payable_id
```
closesodoo/odoo#95903
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
If the test is ran on a database without account installed, it will fail
because of the missing ref.
closesodoo/odoo#95735
Signed-off-by: Xavier Dollé (xdo) <xdo@odoo.com>
Task: 2856281
- Remove user_type_id, account.account.type model, internal_type
- Add account_type that is a simple selection field
- Move internal_group and include_initial_balance to account.account
- Because of these changes, type_control_ids on account.journal is also removed
closesodoo/odoo#93212
Related: odoo/documentation#2223
Related: odoo/upgrade#3595
Related: odoo/enterprise#28205
Signed-off-by: Cedric Snauwaert <csn@odoo.com>
In the web client, in a real use case, it's not possible
to write on fields which are invisible,
as it's not possible to write on fields which are readonly.
This is a first step in the goal to change the behavior
of the `groups=` attribute in the back-end views,
to remove them for the view instead of making them invisible.
This is mainly to reduce the diff of the revision that will introduce
the mentioned above behavior change.
As nodes with `groups=` will be removed from the view
when the user doesn't have the group, it's no longer possible
to set a value on a field having a `groups=` the user doesn't have
in the `Form` test class, as the field will no longer be at all in the
view.
However, these unit tests shouldn't have been able to set values
on invisible fields in the first place.
This revision therefore aims to correct the unit tests setting value
on fields which were invisible because the user executing the
test was not part of the required group(s) for these fields
to be visible in the view.
closesodoo/odoo#94337
Related: odoo/enterprise#28936
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
Purpose
=======
It sometimes happens that the last runbot build is green, but it's
impossible to create a basic record (a new user for example) in the
interface.
This commit adds new tests using the Form tool (so triggering the
onchanges, and so on), to check that those basic models can be
instanciated without any issue on the interface.
closesodoo/odoo#38962
Taskid: 2070350
X-original-commit: e6d8c471c036a35b2c86f91d0053435f468c0ab8
Signed-off-by: Yannick Tivisse (yti) <yti@odoo.com>
Gorash