Problem
-------
A user with no read access on private employee (hr.employee) model
will get a bad query error if he search on employee_id on res.users
The new domain evaluation system generate query like this
SELECT "hr_employee"."user_id" FROM "hr_employee_public"
because the _search of hr.employee was not returning the search result
from the right table
Solution
--------
Return a search result from the right table
closesodoo/odoo#63036
X-original-commit: e542c4121af098372c250a081635a44829e50406
Signed-off-by: Yannick Tivisse (yti) <yti@odoo.com>
New module for supporting two-factor authentication via time-base
one-time-password (TOTP).
Users (including portal users) can choose to enable two-factor auth in
their user account settings, by scanning a QR code and adding it to an
authenticator app, such as Google Auth, 1Password, etc.
When two-factor is enabled, password-based non-interactive RPC is only
possible by using API keys.
Co-authored-by: Olivier Dony <odo@odoo.com>
"Edition" is a French-English false friend word. "Edition" in English
means "version" whereas "edition" in French means "editing". This commit
updates user facing strings/documents that incorrectly use "edition" instead
of "edit" or "editing". Attempts were made to clean up English around
"edition" usage so please excuse any errors from lack of context
knowledge. Code comments and names incorrectly using "edition" were NOT
updated.
Currently, a simple user no longer see fields protected
by groups in his profile.
When retreiving the view arch, `sudo()` is used to bypass
the group protection.
But since commit 1e6c3be, `.sudo()` no longer changes the user.
Hence, groups are still checked for the simple user.
To fix the problem, the view arch should be retrieved with
a user with all groups (SUPERUSER). This assumes that
SUPERUSER has effectively all groups.
closesodoo/odoo#35486
Signed-off-by: Romain Libert (rli) <rli@odoo.com>
The `private_email`, `last_check_in` and `last_check_in`
fields were added by e9d9898 to the
profile view but not in `SELF_READABLE_FIELDS`.
A simple user was therefore not able to read the field and
access his profile.
To avoid any similar oversight in the future, a test is added
to ensure a simple user is able to read all fields in
the profile view.
Purpose
=======
1/ Robustness & security: right now it is not easy to understand and do something
clean in term of security (hr people vs employees, private info vs public). A
HR officer doesn't know if he can write something on the chatter. Currently, a
note will be visible for all the employees who have access to the employee form
view for example.
2/ In term of business, it makes sense to let a hr manages payroll stuff (contract,
employees private information, ... and other employee see public information
(résumé and work information)
Specification
=============
Introduce 2 new models:
- hr.employee.base (AbstractModel): This represents the basic skeleton
model on which the shared fields and methods between the public and
the private employees models.
- hr.employee.public (_auto=False): This is a sql view based on the
employee values, readable for an internal user (i.e. an employee).
The model hr.employee is not readable anymore for an employee.
There are now 3 ways to access the employee data:
1/ From the hr.employee views. HR officer access rights are required
2/ From the public profile. The public data for an employee are accessible
but can't be modified.
3/ From the 'My Profile' menu. A classic employee can access its own
data from there, and can modify them.
General Purpose
===============
We want an 'Employee profile' gathering every data about an employee.
The main form view is modified to become this employee profile.
A user can also see his own profile through the Preferences menu.
The new profile replaces the current Preferences view if the hr module is installed
and the current user is linked to an employee.
A user should be able to see and edit his own profile.
*Problem*:
Many fields on hr.employee are protected by groups="hr.group_hr_user".
Therefore, a regular user cannot see or edit those fields.
This protection must be bypassed to allow read/write access
to the regular user's own data.
A similar mechanism already exists for res.users (for Preferences)
The better (least worst) solution found is to reuse this mechanism by adding related fields on res.users.
Pros:
- Don't change security access on hr.employee
- Don't implement yet another custom security layer, risking to add new security breaches
- A lot of fields are added by other modules on hr.employee.
It would have required to integrate them with the custom security layer.
- Fields added by other modules on the user's preferences view (normal view, not the profile)
are automatically included in the employee's profile view.
- Allow the hr.employee form view to be different than the user profile accessible
through the Preferences menu.
E.g. add custom buttons only relevant to the logged in user such as "Request a leave".
Cons:
- Each field from hr.employee that you want to appear on its profile
must be added as a related field on res.users
- Those related fields must be added to user's preferences view (duplicate views)
- They also must be added to SELF_[READABLE | WRITABLE]_FIELDS
Note:
When the front-end loads the views it gets the list of available fields
for the user (according to its access rights). Later, when the front-end wants to
populate the view with data, it only asks to read those available fields.
However, in this case, we want the user to be able to read/write its own data,
even if they are protected by groups (groups are kept on the related fields on res.users).
The front-end need to be made aware of those fields by sending all field definitions.
hr_attendance
=============
This commit integrate attendance in the new employee profile.
It also adds a stat button to this employee profile showing
the number of hours worked last month.
Remove the boolean computed field 'manual_attendance'.
This field is just a shortcut to add/remove the employee's user
in the "Manual Attendance" group.
The checkbox is confusing on the employee's form and this should
be done through the normal group management screens.
hr_presence
===========
Display the presence status on the employee kanban template.
The status is a colored chip which can be green (present),
orange (to define) or red (absent).
Currently, the presence status is only computed when accessing
the report view. As this commits displays it on the employee kanban,
it should be updated more frequently.
The state should not be updated every time the kanban view is loaded
since the computation is a bit heavy. Instead: add a cron to update
status every 15 minutes.
-> The status is accurate on the report view (status is still updated
when loading the view)
-> The status in accurate at 15 minutes on the kanban view
[ADD] hr_attendance_presence
============================
Bridge module between hr_attendance and hr_presence.
This commit integrates hr_presence module in the employee
profile and adds the presence status on the employee kanban view.
But hr_attendance adds at the same place a similar status icon for
checkin/checkout.
This bridge module makes the status from hr_presence invisible as
hr_attendance should be the main presence control mechanism.
Also, this commit adds the ability (through a new setting option)
for hr_presence to take into account checkin/checkout to determine
the presence status.
l10n_be_hr_payroll
==================
integration with employee profile
William Braeckman