Issues
======
- `_apply_ir_rule` applies `ir.rule` of the current model and also
`ir.rule` from the inherited model (via inherits). But
`check_access_rule` doesn't check the later one.
- `_flush_search` doesn't flush fields coming from the `ir.rule` of
the inherited model (via inherits). Then the filtering done by
`_apply_ir_rule` may be inconsistent with cached values.
Changes
=======
Because of https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/6ddcb448612f5d784c8e9ebb90f19077e65be3e1/odoo/osv/expression.py#L1073-L1073,
and https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/00e86b1552d1e5541a8dbf9411de5cfdb8990cc4/odoo/fields.py#L2895
leaf like `('<many2one_delegate>', 'any', [<sub-domain>])`,
will be translated in the same way as `_inherits_join_add` does.
We can remove `_inherits_join_add` and its usage in `_apply_ir_rule`
and change `ir.rule._compute_domain` to also return the inherited
(via inherits) `ir.rule` domain (with the new 'any' operator).
Since `_compute_domain` is used by `_apply_ir_rule` and
`_filter_access_rules_python`, everything is consistent.
Also fix `BaseModel._flush_search` to take in account 'any'/'not any'
operators (compulsory in order to flush correctly new domain
from `ir.rule._compute_domain` generated).
Part-of: odoo/odoo#125916
Add test to ensure that `_compute_display_name` is called once with
the correct recordset during `read_group`. Also
fix and small typo in the documentation of `read_group`.
closesodoo/odoo#132261
X-original-commit: 60477586f11ca7eb698240a6bd3f565b5a9e3279
Signed-off-by: Julien Castiaux (juc) <juc@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Rémy Voet (ryv) <ryv@odoo.com>
These changes are made as a result of simplifying attrs and 'states' in
views. However, they should have remained in a separate commit. When
applying the script making the xml changes (used later for the migration
script), the script checked the definition of the python fields in order
to convert the information into a python expression. Therefore, this
commit is not applied when the script is applied to xml changes.
During this attribute deletion pre-existing errors were found. Part of
the code was using the boolean values of 'states' and another part of
the code was not. The behavior could therefore be different (in cases
where readonly on the field had the same value as the ballan in
'states').
Following the deletion of 'states' and without the application of the
view migration, the js tests (tower) were no longer functional. Tests
using the Form view suffered the same effect. There are few tests that
had to be adapted, including two tests in business accounting (updated
by the accounting team). A test for column_invisible did not work. Test
checking if the test system triggers an error if we try to write on an
invisible field. It turns out that Form was testing on the value of
invisible but not taking into account if the column was invisible. The
test system fix is applied separately because there were a lot of tests
that were incorrect.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#104741
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
This patch aims to fix multiple issues with the removal of table
constraints at module uninstall.
1. We cannot remove `ir.model.constraint` records before calling
`_module_data_uninstall` on them. Otherwise we either won't find them
when performing the search
`self.env['ir.model.constraint'].search([('module', 'in',
modules.ids)]` or, if we somehow keep the ids and use `browse`
instead, would get an error because `_module_data_uninstall` tries to
access field values of records already removed. Note, although not an
issue, the removal is redundant for non FK constraints since
`_model_data_uninstall` already unlinks the record.
2. When a constraint has a name longer than 63 characters (Postgres
default) we would fail the check for the existence of the constraint
since the names are truncated.
3. When checking for the presence of a constraint we assumed its type
would be `u` in `pg_constraint` because for us that means non FK
(i.e. not `f` type). That's incorrect since there are many more
types. Here we propose to handle `c,u,x` types.
For bullet 2 we use `tools.make_identifier` that hashes the name and
ensures it fits in the 63 chars limit.
Revert "[IMP] models: warn if constraint key len exceed 63"
The check from commit 823d9e10dc is no
longer needed since the name is ensured to fit length limit.
[IMP] code: improve uninstall tests
Perform extra checks for removal of SQL constraints. Note the test is
commented out in `__init__.py`. It can be uncommented locally for
testing. It's kept commented out to avoid random errors in runbot.
closesodoo/odoo#129084
X-original-commit: af288b7178c25261329dd85a2e64b9dd635cd9e1
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Allow some models to be delegated to the main company of the object.
For instance:
* Have company Parent and Child
* Child has access to all the accounts of Parent
* When creating a document in Child using an account of Parent, there
shouldn't be a consistency error.
In order to do that, a new method `_check_company_domain` has been added.
This method is used when `check_company=True` is set on the field
declaration to:
* filter relational fields in the UI [^1]
* validate relational fields when writing on them in `create` and `write`
That method should also be used in the business code for models likely
to be shared amongst company branches instead of hardcoding the domain
based on `company_id`.
The same applies on domain restriction on the field declaration: the
flag `check_company` should be prefered instead of providing the domain
explicitly based on `company_id`.
Since a lot of validation and filtering will now be done based on
`parent_of`/`child_of` of the company, some support has been added for
that special case in `filtered_domain` in order to avoid doing
additional queries.
task-3371677
[^1]: because of that change, support has been added on the python
interpreter of the client to allow concatenatng domains.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#125642
Let's assume that
* Company S is a sub company of it's parent company P
* Company S has access to all the accounts and taxes of company P
* Some taxes are archived, but used
Because of the needed access rules, there will be a `parent_of` on the
record rules of accounts and taxes.
If we consider that we should consider the context key `active_test` to
add a implicit `('active', '=', True)` clause in the domain when
evaluating `parent_of` and `child_of` clauses, an access error will be
raised instead of hiding the archived records, even when simply trying
to read an archived record.
The archive feature and the security rules should be independent; if a
security rules needs to depend on the fact that a record is archived, it
should be explicit in the domain and not rely on side effects of the
implementation of `parent_of`/`child_of`
Part-of: odoo/odoo#125642
This commit partly reverts 59afbf6686 and
provides an alternative solution. In this solution, records.web_read()
returns a list of dicts where the key 'id' corresponds to each record.id
in records, which enables to reliably relate each record to its values.
This also fixes the implementation of web_read() on new records where
the fields contain a reference field with some context.
closesodoo/odoo#128878
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
One of the main issue with ormcache is that the invalidation clears
everything, meaning that some value, slow to compute but with a long
lifetime, can be removed from the cache because an easy to invalidate
value is cleared, like after writting or creating a product has an
example.
Most example in the code will try to invalidate the cache of the models
doing something like `env['ir.qweb'].clear_caches()` but it is
finally equivalent to `env.registry.clear_cache()`, and cross worker.
The idea is to have multiple cache, maybe with specific sizes for a
specific purpose.
Having one per model is maybe a bad idea because it will be difficult
to size the LRU correcly, and it is too dynamic. Checking invalidation
may be expensive.
The proposed solution is closed allow a limited number of named caches,
using onse sequence per cache. This is actually close to the
cache_longterm.
We want to discourage using a specific cache for one use case in
the buisness code. Adding a cache shouldn't be something easy, doable
in stable.
Note that we could also change the invalisation mecanism using an
insert only table. We an check the sequence of this table, but also
fetch all invalidation messages.
Another possible improvement, especially if we have more than x cache is
to have a global sequence, checking signaling would mean to check the
main sequence, and only the other ones if the main one changed.
Note that this poc is inspired from the long term cache but not all
use case where applie yet.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#119813
`filtered_domain` didn't throw an exception when it is called with a
domain containing the new 'any' and 'not any' operators. Fix it.
X-original-commit: 05713a270bfad406daa9dbf739b80cf8c4d065c0
Part-of: odoo/odoo#127750
The `api.constrains` `_check_name` on `ir.model.fields`
ensures users do not create custom fields not starting with `x_`.
It offers a user-friendly message when users try to do that.
However, this `api.constrains` can be bypassed,
for instance when updating the field name through raw SQL.
This revision aims to no longer load custom fields
if they do not starts with `x_`.
In addition, it replaces the Python constraint
with an SQL constraint in order to have a stronger constraint.
Following bugs or unexpected flows, people
were able to add custom fields not starting with `x_`
with the `api.constrains` alone.
Adding the SQL constraint will tighten the constraint.
However, even without that SQL constraint,
for instance if users drop the SQL constraint manually,
custom field not starting by `x_` must not be loaded.
A user would be able to drop that constraint
through a SQL shell or a `cr.execute` in a server action.
This is to prevent users to override class attributes.
closesodoo/odoo#127702
Related: odoo/upgrade#4908
Before the task
when the default language for a website is not en_US, and users try to
edit_translations from the website, all terms are marked "translated"
because odoo adds
`data-oe-translation-state="to translate"` if the term is not extracted from
the en_US value and is the same as its en_US term
After this commit:
if the record's bounded website's default language is lang_base
odoo adds
`data-oe-translation-state="to translate"` if the term is not extracted from
the lang_base value and is the same as its lang_base term
closesodoo/odoo#127468
Task-id: 3344973
X-original-commit: 7c20510bda2f1312a9392df445ee38aea7b2267b
Signed-off-by: Julien Castiaux (juc) <juc@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Chong Wang (cwg) <cwg@odoo.com>
The `name_search` makes at least 2 SQL requests, one to find the records
and one to read fields needed to compute the `display_name`. With the
default `_compute_display_name`, it only needs to fetch the `_rec_name`
field (if there is one), but the ORM perfetch field mechanism will also
fetch every prefetchable field (see `_fetch_field`).
Then, to avoid running two queries and fetching too many fields, we add
the dependency fields (with `_determine_fields_to_fetch`) to the select
clause of the `Query` returned by `_name_search`.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#122085
Rationale
=========
Since v8, the `display_name` field is present on all models. By default,
`display_name` uses `name_get` which has pretty much the same purpose
(return record name used by the web client). Gradually, many (backend)
developers (and the ORM: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/6da1c3ac4c036eac289597602976538e243cb939)
started using `display_name` (more convenient than
`record.name_get()[0][1]`) but it still had the `name_get` override.
It becomes more complex than necessary and poeple start to misunderstand
the two (and sometimes override both, leading to inconstiencies between
`display_name`/`name_get`).
To simplify the ORM and the API, we decided to keep only one of them,
the `display_name` field:
- It is much more convenient from a backend point of view
(`record.name_get()[0][1]` vs `record.display_name`)
- It is cached during the same transaction (and invalidated if
its dependencies change)
- It can be overridden like any other compute field (override
`_compute_display_name` with any extra dependencies)
- `name_get` is replaced by `read(['display_name'])`
(API perceptive), which can actually be more efficient
(if `display_name`'s depends are correct, the ORM will only fetch the
fields it needs instead of every prefetchable field)
Changes
=======
- Deprecates `name_get` for the v17 and based the method on
`display_name` (the opposite of before)
- Converts all usage of `name_get`
- Overrides of `name_get` are now overrides of `_compute_display_name`
- For `res.partner`, rename the field store `display_name` into
`complete_name` because `display_name` context-dependent and it makes
no sense to have a compute store that is context-dependent.
- Previously, it was possible to return multiple names for the same
record with `name_get`, but it was tricky and most of the usage of
this `name_get` didn't take this into account. The only example of
this is the `name_get` of `product.product`
(now use `", ".join(<names>)`).
Part-of: odoo/odoo#122085
Identifiers (including column names) that are not double-quoted are folded to
lowercase in PostgreSQL. Before this commit, this resulted in errors when
updating translations for translatable fields, because the query did not
correctly quote all identifiers.
opw-3287428
closesodoo/odoo#125641
X-original-commit: 70ae8de223fc10f6e80dae06b0f6a6f15c198b5f
Signed-off-by: Julien Castiaux (juc) <juc@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom De Caluwé (tdc) <tdc@odoo.com>
`tocompute` in the `Transaction` contains store field on records to
be recomputed. No-store compute fields are directly invalidated from
the cache when a dependency changes (see `BaseModel.modified`).
In fact, `_recompute_field` was actually doing too much for nothing.
Also, it may invalidate caches of compute no-store fields for no reason
(e.g., if they are searchable). Remove the part for field compute
no-store field. And prevent `_recompute_field` callers from calling it
with no-store fields.
closesodoo/odoo#122147
X-original-commit: ba9ccb07fb12558667db97b866df492fd0f5ba4d
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Rémy Voet <ryv@odoo.com>
In specific situation, unlink can lead to raise a `RecursionError`:
- The model `A` has a many2one `b_id` field toward a model `B`.
This field is set with `ondelete='cascade'`.
- The model `A` has one **store** related field **no-sudo** named
`a_related` (`related='b_id.b_other_field`).
- With `ir.rule` on model `A` with a domain containing `a_related`
You have one record B `b_1` with 20 records A linked to it
(`a_1, ..., a_20`). When you try to unlink `b_1`:
Stack:
File "...", line 543, in ...
b_1.unlink()
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3594, in unlink
self.env.flush_all()
=> At this point, `a_1, ..., a_20` have already been deleted from the
database because of the 'cascade' deletion. But the ORM doesn't have
any information about this, and `a_related` (for `a_1, ..., a_20`) are
flagged to be recomputed (because it depends on `b_id.b_other_field`)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/api.py", line 732, in flush_all
self._recompute_all()
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/api.py", line 728, in _recompute_all
self[field.model_name]._recompute_field(field)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 6165, in _recompute_field
field.recompute(records)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1348, in recompute
self.compute_value(record)
=> `self.compute_value(recs)` raised a `MissingError` before recalling
`compute_value` with only the first `record` (but others are still in
the prefetch)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1368, in compute_value
records._compute_field_value(self)
=> `a_related` of `record` is removed from to_compute, but only the
first record, not the rest of the records present in the prefetch set.
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 4194, in _compute_field_value
fields.determine(field.compute, self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 100, in determine
return needle(records, *args)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 689, in _compute_related
values = [first(value[name]) for value in values]
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 689, in <listcomp>
values = [first(value[name]) for value in values]
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 5860, in __getitem__
return self._fields[key].__get__(self, type(self))
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 2772, in __get__
return super().__get__(records, owner)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1186, in __get__
recs._fetch_field(self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3162, in _fetch_field
self._read(fnames)
=> `_read` tries to read the first record + others from the prefetch set
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3215, in _read
self.with_context(active_test=False)._flush_search([], order='id')
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 4607, in _flush_search
self.env[model_name].flush_model(field_names)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 5560, in flush_model
self._recompute_model(fnames)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 6134, in _recompute_model
self._recompute_field(field)
=> This is where the recursion starts, record compute will move forward
one by one. But sadly, the stack grows very fast, and with only a few
(already deleted) records to recompute, the issue will be generated.
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 6165, in _recompute_field
field.recompute(records)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1348, in recompute
self.compute_value(record)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1368, in compute_value
records._compute_field_value(self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 4194, in _compute_field_value
fields.determine(field.compute, self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 100, in determine
return needle(records, *args)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 689, in _compute_related
values = [first(value[name]) for value in values]
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 689, in <listcomp>
values = [first(value[name]) for value in values]
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 5860, in __getitem__
return self._fields[key].__get__(self, type(self))
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 2772, in __get__
return super().__get__(records, owner)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1186, in __get__
recs._fetch_field(self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3162, in _fetch_field
self._read(fnames)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3215, in _read
self.with_context(active_test=False)._flush_search([], order='id')
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 4607, in _flush_search
self.env[model_name].flush_model(field_names)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 5560, in flush_model
self._recompute_model(fnames)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 6134, in _recompute_model
self._recompute_field(field)
How to fix it:
Move the logic of the MissingError of `_recompute_field` inside the
`recompute` directly.
X-original-commit: c2aac02ac4f8c5cc4a9324134535393bd97338ce
Part-of: odoo/odoo#122147
before this commit
When users open the translation dialog for an empty field, and directly update
and save all translations in the translation dialog, nothing will be saved for
backend
after this commit:
these translations will be saved.
opw-3297748
closesodoo/odoo#122008
X-original-commit: ae643ab48b3447f372bfe08fbad7515f370b7cbe
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Chong (cwg) <cwg@odoo.com>
The issue with properties fields is that the value in the record
snapshot is not correct. This is caused by convert_to_record()
combining the values with the definition, and in the case of onchange(),
the values don't match the definition, which causes the method to return
the empty list [].
We fix the root cause by changing convert_to_record() to return the dict
itself. The combination of the values with the definition is now only
done in convert_to_read(). Method convert_to_onchange() has only one
hack to retrieve the current definition record from the record snapshot,
as because of cache invalidation, its value is no longer available.
closesodoo/odoo#120457
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Before this commit if a computed field is already in cache, but not its
dependencies, `fetch` would fetch those dependencies.
This commit ensures that fetch checks first if a computed is in cache
before fetching its dependencies.
This commit also follows dependencies of computed fields, if they depend
on other computed fields.
Finally, this commit consolidates `fetch` and `search_fetch`:
they should use the same heuristics to know which fields to fetch.
closesodoo/odoo#120001
X-original-commit: 6b680c463956f929db10d4c3058c36112a67e674
Signed-off-by: Vincent Schippefilt (vsc) <vsc@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: rco-odoo <rco@odoo.com>
a new context `prefetch_langs=True` allows ORM to prefetch all translations of
translated fields while fetching.
For example
The activated languages are 'fr_FR' and 'nl_NL'
In the database the value is '{"en_US": "English", "fr_FR": "French"}'::jsonb
after fetch with `prefetch_langs=True` the raw cache value will become
{'en_US': 'English', 'fr_FR': 'French', 'nl_NL': 'English'}
closesodoo/odoo#116947
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
On a model X, where there is a field related x_related
(related= 'y_id.y_translate') towards a translate field y_translate
on Model Y.
When you unlink at least 1001 records of X
(r1, r2, ... , r1000, r1001) (cr.MAX_IN + 1), you get a traceback
(`RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded in comparison`).
The stack looks like:
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3609, in unlink
self.env.flush_all()
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/api.py", line 732, in flush_all
self._recompute_all()
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/api.py", line 728, in _recompute_all
self[field.model_name]._recompute_field(field)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 6179, in _recompute_field
field.recompute(records)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1348, in recompute
self.compute_value(record)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1368, in compute_value
records._compute_field_value(self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 4209, in _compute_field_value
fields.determine(field.compute, self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 100, in determine
return needle(records, *args)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 689, in _compute_related
values = [first(value[name]) for value in values]
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 689, in <listcomp>
values = [first(value[name]) for value in values]
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 5874, in __getitem__
return self._fields[key].__get__(self, type(self))
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 2771, in __get__
return super().__get__(records, owner)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1186, in __get__
recs._fetch_field(self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3162, in _fetch_field
self._read(fnames)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3214, in _read
self.flush_recordset(translated_field_names)
...
-> Extra info:
translated_field_names = ['x_related']
`self = X(r1001, r1, r2, ..., r999)`
...
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 5585, in flush_recordset
self._recompute_recordset(fnames)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 6162, in _recompute_recordset
self._recompute_field(field, self._ids)
...
-> Long recursion starts here but first records to be recomputed will be r1, then r2, then r3, ...
But the maximum recursion depth error will be triggered earlier at the
end of the recursion, because the stack limit in Python is 1000
by default.
...
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 6179, in _recompute_field
field.recompute(records)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1348, in recompute
self.compute_value(record)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1368, in compute_value
records._compute_field_value(self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 4209, in _compute_field_value
fields.determine(field.compute, self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 100, in determine
return needle(records, *args)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 689, in _compute_related
values = [first(value[name]) for value in values]
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 689, in <listcomp>
values = [first(value[name]) for value in values]
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 5874, in __getitem__
return self._fields[key].__get__(self, type(self))
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 2771, in __get__
return super().__get__(records, owner)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/fields.py", line 1186, in __get__
recs._fetch_field(self)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3162, in _fetch_field
self._read(fnames)
File "/home/odoo/Documents/dev/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 3214, in _read
self.flush_recordset(translated_field_names)
...
------ Extra info:
translated_field_names = ['x_related']
`self = X(r1, r2, ... , r999)`
...
Since 9c3b9a4926, the `x_related` is
flagged to be recomputed at the end of the delete
loop of `unlink`, but it shouldn't be, because records are deleted now.
The problem is in these lines:
```python
with self.env.protecting(self._fields.values(), records):
self.modified(self._fields, before=True)
```
The `records` are only a part of `self` (batch of 1000), so the
`protecting` call only protects the current batch and not `self`.
Then, the second batch (here with only one record), will flag to recompute
`x_related` of the first batch records. Then, later on, the `flush_all`
will generate the recursion error trying to resolve
these `to_recompute`.
To fix it, only move the modified call (+ protecting) before
the batch loop and executes it on `self`.
This issue shouldn't exist in master, because having a
related translate field triggers a warning (`Translated stored related
field (<field_name>) will not be computed correctly in all languages`).
Also `https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/100472` fixes the issue in
master, but it generates one SQL request by record, which isn't great.
Then in master, we should forward this commit (but test will be remove
because it generates the warning message).
closesodoo/odoo#119471
X-original-commit: 78450cae5900e267de439e4988b314aa644e76bd
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Rémy Voet <ryv@odoo.com>
Before 916c9c46f58f27c68c5558a2a57fdca43a89fe89, we could
groupby several times on the same relational field with `read_group`
Example: `read_group(..., groupby=['product_id', 'product_id'], ...)`.
Now, it produces a traceback:
File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 2583, in read_group
self._read_group_format_result(rows_dict, lazy_groupby)
File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 2396, in _read_group_format_result
ids = [row[group].id for row in rows_dict if row[group]]
File "/data/build/odoo/odoo/models.py", line 2396, in <listcomp>
ids = [row[group].id for row in rows_dict if row[group]]
AttributeError: 'tuple' object has no attribute 'id'
It is because `_read_group_format_result` try to convert the record
into tuple (id, display_name) twice (one for each groupby).
Fix this issue introduced by the refactor of `_read_group`.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#119459
Calling `fetch` with computed fields will also check that the dependencies
of those fields are fetched, which is good.
This commit adds a check that verifies that all the dependencies are already
fetched before re-fetching them.
closesodoo/odoo#119247
X-original-commit: 7ab724450c9aa29ad6c1739cff1e928d79666dac
Signed-off-by: Rémy Voet <ryv@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Vincent Schippefilt (vsc) <vsc@odoo.com>
Calling `fetch` with 'id' in the `fields_name`, will always generate
SQL query even if all requested field values are in the cache.
This is because we also look for values in the 'id' field cache,
but we don't ever fill the cache for `Id` fields.
closesodoo/odoo#119107
X-original-commit: 3ba8d0e5e57e1358cc8958abf511d514515eccb2
Signed-off-by: Vincent Schippefilt (vsc) <vsc@odoo.com>
Make the public `read_group` depends of its private method `_read_group`
refactored to match the backend usage.
We try to keep the public API similar for this first part of the
rafactor, but there are still some API change:
- We cannot order by `id` anymore.
- The display_name of many2x group values are not lazy anymore.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#110737
Lot of override of read_group reimplement partially custom security
rule of `_search` method. In order to simplify these security check
and have a consistent behavior between the search and read_group method,
_read_group now use _search to create the from and where clause.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#110737
The `_read_group` was designed to be used by the web client to
efficiently compute aggregations grouped by one or more fields.
However, more and more developers have been using it from the backend
to make computations more efficient (avoid doing the aggregation
in Python). Unfortunately, the API was designed for the web client,
which added a lot of boilerplate when used in the Python (list of
dict with misleading key name choices).
`_read_group` was created to improve the performance of read_group
for backend use (4ef0c00b4b), but didn't
change the API and based the implementation on read_group itself.
Rewrite `_read_group` from scratch with a new API to make it easier
to use from the backend (see the method documentation). Also, split
the method to make it easy to override and add custom behavior.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#110737
As a developer,
when you craft your records set manually,
and wrongly use the API and set something weird in `ids`,
something else than a tuple of integers,
`repr` should help you to understand you did something wrong.
e.g.
before
```py
In [1]: env['res.partner']._browse(self.env, '(1,)', 'bar')
Out[1]: res.partner(1,)
```
after
```py
In [1]: env['res.partner']._browse(self.env, '(1,)', 'bar')
Out[1]: res.partner'(1,)'
```
We could put an assert in `_browse` to make sure `ids`
is a tuple of integers, but this is considered a non-stable
change, as it will suddenly crashes when you will update
Odoo while it wasn't the case before.
closesodoo/odoo#118119
X-original-commit: f689c4f53fc4663b17c57bd1d704b9ffb9f11f8d
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
Recent Odoo versions require modern postgres (e.g. use of jsonb), the
`NULLS {FIRST | LAST}` clause was added in 8.3 so should be well
supported.
While Odoo's use of nulls is not always consistent, the NULLS ordering
clauses can be quite useful especially when sorting `DESC`: `NULLS
FIRST` and `NULLS LAST` are literal positions so they put nulls at
that location regardless of sort order whereas the default Postgres
ordering is to consider nulls larger than every other value so they
appear first when sorting DESC, which is often undesirable (putting
nulls first when sorting ASC can also be useful to fill records).
Update `_generate_order_by_inner` to correctly process `NULLS` clauses:
- Use `regex_order` to ensure we parse orderings correctly and
consistently, also update `regex_order` to use named groups to make
the relevant bits clearer (and VERBOSE for readability).
- Given `a_id DESC` and `_fields[a_id].relation._order = 'xxx NULLS
LAST'`, reversing the clause should order by `xxx DESC NULLS FIRST`
to correctly flip the original as `NULLS` clauses are not relative
to the sorting order (they put the `NULL`-valued records at the
specified location regardless). Therefore apply `reverse_direction`
to `NULLS`.
- Manually expand `NULLS` clauses on m2o fields: propagating the
clause through the join would yield unexpected and illogical results
when mixing NULL m2o fields and non-NULL m2o fields with NULL
`_order` fields (as they would get mixed rather than clearly layered
/ separated).
However because SQL booleans are ordered the usual way (`true >
false`) the `NULLS` clause is fundamentally equivalent to sorting on
the field being NULL (if `NULLS LAST`) or not (if `NULLS FIRST`). So
we can prepend the expanded m2o's ordering with such a clause to get
the correct behavior.
Replaces #116464
Supersedes #116664closesodoo/odoo#117439
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Petar Najman <petar.najman@modoolar.com>
As we have a team dedicated to work on analysing tracebacks
with sentry, and to takedown all tracebacks occuring on the saas,
we do an effort to avoid unecessary warnings and tracebacks
for both sentry and the runbot.
closesodoo/odoo#112101
Signed-off-by: Rémy Voet <ryv@odoo.com>
This fixes an issue with an override of onchange() on account.asset,
which asks for less fields to be considered in the snapshot. This also
guarantees that onchange() does not return values for unexpected fields.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#116779
after odoo #113888
when copy translations from one record to another, translations for
non-installed languages may raise error.
These translations may be
1. created before the langauge is deactivated
2. en_US which is always available for non falsy translated field value
this commit drops translations for uninstalled languages except 'en_US' when
copy and prevents raising error when users want to translate en_US when en_US is
not activated
closesodoo/odoo#115711
X-original-commit: 7bb1825ddbf2340882bef5ed1d9c877f78a2b815
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Wang Chong (cwg) <cwg@odoo.com>
This commit adds a check to prevent saving a translation in a language that was not installed.
Upon adding a translation, the field "language" in the request was not checker,
allowing to add translation for language (or any strings as key) for a given field
This is not ideal and we want to prevent that, it can bloat the database for no reason.
opw-3208305
closesodoo/odoo#114793
X-original-commit: 89cd5ce88a0c666e811410e264e3cb474f9851c0
Signed-off-by: Vranckx Florian (flvr) <flvr@odoo.com>
Purpose
=======
Allow to search properties fields.
For now, the properties fields are meant to be used with the frontend
top bar filter on views in a later commit, and so everything as been
kept as simple as possible for that particular use case.
Technical
=========
Relational properties
---------------------
We can not search on relational properties using the rec name, or
using one of their fields.
The following domains do not work
```
[('properties.partner_id', 'ilike', 'alice')]
[('properties.partner_ids', 'ilike', 'alice')]
[('properties.user_id.name', 'ilike', 'bob')]
[('properties.user_ids.name', 'ilike', 'bob')]
```
Instead, we should give the ids
```
[('properties.partner_id', '=', 55)]
[('properties.partner_ids', 'in', 55)]
```
IN operator
-----------
The "in" operator is used to either search specific tags / many2many
values, either doing a "OR like" condition on "non-array" value.
It can be used if the left or the right side is not an array
```
[('properties.my_char', 'in', ['a', 'b'])]
[('properties.my_tags', 'in', 'a')]
```
But it can't be used if both side of the condition are array, because
it will require to check type in SQL (which is technically possible,
but add extra complexity, so for now we keep the feature as simple as
possible).
So the following domain is not supported.
```
[('properties.my_tags', 'in', ['a', 'b'])]
```
Instead we should use the "OR" operator
```
['|', ('properties.my_tags', 'in', 'a'), ('properties.my_tags', 'in', 'b')]
```
Tags / many2many - "=" operator
-------------------------------
Tags and many2many have to be searched using the "in" operator.
So the following domain will return unexpected results and raise a warning.
```
[('attributes.mytags', '=', ['a', 'b'])]
```
The reason is that we don't want to dynamically check the type in SQL,
and so we need the "in" domain operator to know what to do in SQL.
Task-2980121
Part-of: odoo/odoo#101901
Purpose
=======
Do not modify the cache in order to improve the performance when we
read in batch. Instead we create a new batched method "convert_to_read"
that check existence in batch, and generate a dict with the result.
Now, all the properties field checks (many2one existence, selection option
still exists, tag value stiff exist, etc) and done in "convert_to_read".
It means that doing `record.properties` won't do all those checks.
Having the batched field fetch at the convert_to_record required too
many changes for the scope of this task, so "record.properties" having
the cache values unchecked is an acceptable tradeoff currently, hence
we batch convert_to_read.
Task-2980121
Part-of: odoo/odoo#101901
This fulfills the goal of searching and fetching fields in a single SQL
query. We introduce the new method search_fetch() for that purpose.
Also introduce method fetch() to fetch some fields for a recordset if
they are not in cache yet.
The call graph is as follows:
search() calls search_fetch()
search_read() calls search_fetch() and _read_format()
read() calls fetch() and _read_format()
search_count() calls _search()
search_fetch() calls _search() and _fetch_query()
fetch() calls _search() and _fetch_query()
The methods _search() and _fetch_query() are usually the ones to
override to implement business-specific logic. The method _search()
returns a Query object to retrieve the records that satisfy the given
domain and are accessible for reading. The method _fetch_query() uses a
Query object to retrieve fields from the database and store them in
cache.
Also use search_fetch() to save one query in search_read() and the
reading of one2many fields.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#112126
Rémy Voet (ryv)