Image field widget need the __last_update field alongside them
for caching purposes, though that field should never be present explicitly
in the views
Before this commit, the dependencies of field widgets were not merged into
the model's fields definition, creating a traceback when adding an image field widget
into a x2many list
After this commit, there is no traceback and the image field works properly
closes#27545
- Install hr_expense and stock.
- Add enough products which can be expensed so that a 'Search More...'
option is proposed.
- Restrict the rights of a user U to 'Employee' only.
- As U, create an expense, and click on the 'Search More...' option when
choosing the product
An AccessError is raised on `stock.move`.
The error is due to fields `qty_available` and `virtual_quantity`.
These fields are not necessary in that context, so we define a specific
tree view for this use case.
opw-1891399
closesodoo/odoo#27561
stopPropagation of navigation_move event for where direction=cancel,
currently if navigation_move event throws error when user press escape
in dialog where dialog is opened from editable list record
Scenario: Install website_sale -> Open Product form(variant enable) ->
open variant tab -> open Attribute m2o form popup and press Escape on dialog
Result: Error
Expected: It should close dialog and keep editable list view record open,
btw m2o field should also be focused when dialog is closed but that's
another issue, will be fixed in another ongoing task
Related to Issue: #1873919
Co-authored-by: Vincent Schippefilt <vsc@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Mohammed Shekha <msh@odoo.com>
- Create the following pricelist for product A:
4 Units: 2.88
3 Units: 3.45
2 Units: 4.85
1 Units: 7.50
- In the POS, click several time on A to add in the cart
The 2 first units are merged in a single line, but from the third one a
new line is created.
This is because of the float reproesentation of 4.85, which becomes
4.8500000000000005.
opw-1887586
closesodoo/odoo#27539
Suppose user A creates a sale order S in company X. He then changes to company Y
Sales manager B, in company X, creates the invoice for sale order S.
Bug: the compilation of the report fails because of the user.name in the
template. Then the tracking update fails, making it impossible to validate the
invoice.
opw 1884915
The view_mode attribute is automatically set to the 'action' nodes
when the action is added to the dashboard using the 'Add to
dashboard' button in the searchview. However, other dashboard views
can be written by hand (see openacademy tutorial), and in this
case, we don't want to hardcode action's params (like context or
domain), as the dashboard can directly retrieve them from the
action. Same applies for the view_type, as the first view of the
action can be used, by default.
Before this rev., the second usecase wasn't handled, and it crashed
when no view_mode was specified. This rev. also ensure that the
context and domain are correctly retrieved from the action.
Closes#24088closesodoo/odoo#27517
The datetimepicker option was introduced to be able to customize the
datetime picker widget in date/datetime fields. However, due to the way
the _makeDatePicker function was coded, it did not work in datetime
fields.
Thank to Yajo for the initial fix
closesodoo/odoo#27541
In the invoice form view, remove the editable attribute on the invoice line tree
Create an invoice, click add an item in the invoice_line_ids field
Before this commit there was a crash because the tree view contains analytic_tag_ids
but the invoice line form doesn't
After this commit, there is no crash and the invoice line form works as exepected
OPW 1889107
closesodoo/odoo#27382
- From the accounting dashboard, click on the 'Reconcile' button of a
bank journal
- Click on the 'Bank reconciliation' text at the top left
- Click on the 'OK' button that just appears
A traceback occurs.
This event is used to change the name of the statement, when clicking on
'Reconcile' from a bank statemet. In this case, it shouldn't do
anything.
opw-1883308
closesodoo/odoo#27359
Usecase to reproduce:
- Archive a stockable product with quantity on hand
- Start an inventory with all products.
-> Archived product is displayed
It happens because the search is an SQL request that is build
and it thus does not benefits from the automatic search on active
objects.
This commit add an active search on quant for inventory lines.
Fixes#27302closesodoo/odoo#27384
- Create a SO from an opportunity, keep the status draft
=> the 'Quote(s)' number is 1 on the opportunity
- Confirm the SO
The 'Quote(s)' number is 0 on the opportunity, but when clicking on the
stat button 1 quote is displayed.
The `search_default_draft` (and the `search_default_sales` of the Orders
stat button) are not working since the action doesn't use the
appropriate search view.
opw-1888442
Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create three stockable products: Kit, C1 and C2
- Create a phantom BOM for Kit with C1 and C2 as components
- Set the invoicing policy of the kit based on delivered qty
- Create an SO for the kit and validate it
- On the delivery order, just deliver C1 and create a backorder for C2
- Cancel the backorder and duplicate it
- Deliver the duplicated backorder and validate it
Bug:
The delivered qty on the SO line has not been updated to 1.
opw:1886315
- Create the following products in FIFO costing method and real-time
valuation:
Prod Final (F); Invoiced on Delivered Quantity
Prod Comp1 (C1); Cost = 20
Prod Comp2 (C2); Cost = 10
- Create the BOM Kit for F:
2 Unit(s) of C1
1 Unit(s) of C2
- Create a SO for 3 Unit(s) of F
- Validate SO and picking
- Create the invoice and validate
The price unit taken into account for F in the anglo-saxon accounting
entry is:
20 + 10 = 30
=> entry in Stock Output Account is 3 * 30 = 90
while it should be:
(2 * 20) + (1 * 10) = 50
=> entry in Stock Output Account is 3 * 50 = 150
This should finally fix issues corrected with:
9a7ed7c: price unit multiplied by the qty sold (*)
f1fdb97: price unit taking into account only 1 unit of each
component
(*) In the use case solved, the price unit was:
(6 * 20) + (3 * 10) = 150
=> entry in Stock Output Account is 3 * 150 = 450
opw:1886216
Install base_vat_autocomplete and base_address_extended.
Try to create a contact with VAT: BE0477472701 (or any valid one)
Before this commit, there was a traceback because the split of the address string into fields
contained a field that is set in base_adress_extended, and not handled by the current module
After this commit, there is no traceback
OPW 1887288
closes#27291
On a form view, click on set defaults, select a value for a field,
then save
Before this commit, there was a traceback because the model on which we apply
the defaults was not found
After this commit, it works as expected
OPW 1887032
OPW 1888715
closes#27148
The name of an account.move.line is not mandatory
If a line with no name but analytic tags is posted, the name for the analytic
line should be computed differently (the name of an anlytic line is required).
Apply changes from f2b2d87236 to the _prepare_analytic_distribution_line method
Fixes#27281
When working with product variants, if the error which gets displayed does not include the product attributes, it's harder to identify the variant with the error.
closesodoo/odoo#27298
When an attachment is requested with an access_token, a server error
would occur in some situation.
With this changeset when an access token is specified:
- returns a 404 error if the attachment does not exist
- returns a 403 error if the attachment has no access_token
Without this change, the added test would fail with:
```
status = test_access(access_token='Secret')
self.assertEqual(status, 403,
"no access if access token for attachment without access token")
| if not consteq(obj.access_token, access_token):
| TypeError: unsupported operand types(s) or combination of types: 'bool' and 'str'
status = test_access(access_token='Secret')
self.assertEqual(status, 404,
"no access with access token for deleted attachment")
| if not consteq(obj.access_token, access_token):
| odoo.exceptions.MissingError: ('Record does not exist or has been deleted.', None)
```
close#26647
opw-1884419
closes#27275
Co-authored-by: Wolfgang Taferner <wtaferner@users.noreply.github.com>
Christophe Simonis