The main goal of this commit is to reduce the size of the registry by
removing the (almost) useless __last_update field.
Statistics # of fields with all modules installed:
before 30184 fields, 1299x last_update (4.30%)
Before this commit, the computed field __last_update was added on every model.
The idea behind this field was to have a computed field that had either
the write_date or the create_date if the write_date was empty. However,
the write_date is always written, even on creation, making it useless
to have the computed field __last_update
After this update, we completely remove from BaseModel:
* __last_update
* CONCURRENCY_CHECK_FIELD that was always defined as "__last_update"
* _compute_concurrency_field that was the compute function for __last_update
closesodoo/odoo#105739
Task-id: 3062140 (part of 3062137 improve registry load time)
Related: odoo/upgrade#4038
Related: odoo/enterprise#33939
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Since odoo/odoo@69c3d5aa25
the readonly and required modifiers were no longer passed
for non-editable views. Which means:
- kanban: never passed,
- tree: passed only when `editable="1"` or `multi_edit="1"`,
- form: always passed.
The rationale behind that is that a view which is considered
as readonly doesn't need to know if its field are readonly or required,
as by definition, if the view is readonly, the user shouldn't
be able to modify anything in the view.
This was to make the views sent to the web client more light-weight,
not sending unused information, and save KB of transfers.
However, some widgets, used in the kanban and non-editable tree,
allow to modify fields, even in readonly considered views,
and therefore need to know these readonly/required modifiers
from the field definition in the Python model.
e.g. the `widget="color"`, odoo/odoo#103478
Ideally, these readonly/required modifiers should be transferred
only when the widget requires it, to avoid transferring the
readonly/required modifiers
when they are not useful in kanban/tree views
(which is 99% of the time).
However, this would require a bigger refactoring,
which is considered too risky compared to the added value
for a stable release.
task-3013110
closesodoo/odoo#106838
X-original-commit: 5a68d254949f1d0ff545023cfd14890efff10f5f
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
Since odoo/odoo#95729
nodes with a `groups=` are completely removed from the views when
the user is not part of the group, instead of being made invisible.
In that PR, views have been adapted to add back fields, with invisible="1",
when they were required, for instance when they were used in a domain
of another field which was still there despite the user is not part
of the given group.
As `tree` views having `multi_edit="1"` where not considered
as editable views, the domain of fields in these views were not
validated:
- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1fb8fa16ab7dc298d54f089d7163fb556dbc5fcc/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_ui_view.py#L1460
- https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1fb8fa16ab7dc298d54f089d7163fb556dbc5fcc/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_ui_view.py#L1321-L1322
while they are well required for the web client,
in `multi_edit="1"` this is possible to edit relational/many2one field,
and therefore it will do `name_search` calls using the domain of the
field, and therefore the fields used in these domains must always
be present in the views. Without it, a crash in the web client occurs
when attempting to edit the relational/many2one field.
This revision targets to consider the `multi_edit="1"` tree views
as editable, to make the field domains validated as they should be.
Hence, views are adapted to add back fields with `invisible="1"`
when they are required in domains of other fields.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#103790
Only kanban, tree and form implements onchanges.
Therefore, on calendar, graph, pivot, ..., putting `on_change="1"`
is useless and is a waste of resources and KB.
e.g. CRM lead pivot view
Before:
```xml
<pivot string="Pipeline Analysis" sample="1">
<field name="create_date" interval="month" type="row"/>
<field name="stage_id" type="col" on_change="1"/>
<field name="expected_revenue" type="measure"/>
<field name="color" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="automated_probability" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="message_bounce" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="probability" on_change="1" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
</pivot>
```
After:
```xml
<pivot string="Pipeline Analysis" sample="1">
<field name="create_date" interval="month" type="row"/>
<field name="stage_id" type="col"/>
<field name="expected_revenue" type="measure"/>
<field name="color" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="automated_probability" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="message_bounce" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="probability" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
</pivot>
```
I would have like something smarter, like using the `editable` concept
for instance, but it's not that easy.
e.g. kanban is not considered as editable, while it does support
onchanges when grouping record by a field and drag and dropping
record from one column to another.
However, if we change the kanban view to make it editable,
the view validation will start validating the fields domain:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/45d4ac14f65c53dcde56592715d50169bde116ad/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_ui_view.py#L1439-L1442
causing issues:
- If a field used in the domain is not in the view, it will need to be
added in the view,
- while it will not be used, as you cannot do a search in related fields
in kanban views anyway.
e.g.
```
odoo.tools.convert.ParseError: while parsing /data/build/odoo/addons/analytic/views/analytic_line_views.xml:120
Error while validating view near:
<kanban class="o_kanban_mobile" __validate__="1">
<field name="date"/>
<field name="name"/>
Field 'company_id' used in domain of field 'account_id' ([('company_id', 'in', [company_id, False])]) must be present in view but is missing.
```
In addition, the kanban doesn't need the readonly and required
attributes on the field nodes, as other editable views (tree and forms)
do.
In addition, the tree list is currently considered as "editable" only
when it has `editable="bottom" or `editable="top"`, while
a tree without this editable attribute can still trigger onchange,
for instance when using `widget="handle"` or `widget="boolean_toggle"`.
We should therefore making the tree list editable whatever the case,
leading to the same issues than listed for the kanban above,
or make an exception for field in non-editable tree views using a
widget..
So, as the smarter way seems difficult and risky, for a limited gain
I choose the easy way by separating the concept "editable" and
"onchange-able" and to not set `on_change="1"` on views not considered
as "onchange-able".
closesodoo/odoo#102788
X-original-commit: aeb65ee536b1611c1cb829c91906f327f8e331c7
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
When converting the list view to owl, the support for view widgets was
overlooked as this feature is not used very extensively and was not
tested.
This commit adds support for them and adds a test for it.
closesodoo/odoo#102193
X-original-commit: 9098c1d3cd4af8f324b5b09668e92822575f932d
Signed-off-by: Géry Debongnie <ged@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Samuel Degueldre <sad@odoo.com>
pivot, graph, cohort views do not care to know whether a field
is readonly or required, as you cannot edit records in these views.
Even kanban is readonly in most cases:
- you can drag and drop records from one column to another,
which is prevented if the group by field is readonly
but this shouldn't rely on the fact the field is
within the architecture, as you can group by on any fields
from the search views / control panel.
Hence, this shouldn't rely entirely on the modifiers passed on the field
nodes in the view architecture alone.
- you can create new record inside the kanban,
with a simplified form, thanks to the `quick_create`,
but this uses an independant form view, in which the readonly and
required modifiers are correctly passed.
So, `modifiers="{'readonly': true, 'required': true}"` can be dropped
for kanban views as well.
This allow to spare some KB by not setting useless modifiers in views.
e.g. CRM > My pipeline pivot
Before
```xml
<pivot string="Pipeline Analysis" sample="1">
<field name="create_date" interval="month" type="row" modifiers="{"readonly": true}"/>
<field name="stage_id" type="col" on_change="1" can_create="true" can_write="true"/>
<field name="expected_revenue" type="measure"/>
<field name="color" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="automated_probability" modifiers="{"invisible": true, "readonly": true}"/>
<field name="message_bounce" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="probability" on_change="1" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
</pivot>
```
After
```xml
<pivot string="Pipeline Analysis" sample="1">
<field name="create_date" interval="month" type="row"/>
<field name="stage_id" type="col" on_change="1"/>
<field name="expected_revenue" type="measure"/>
<field name="color" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="automated_probability" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="message_bounce" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
<field name="probability" on_change="1" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
</pivot>
```
Regarding the change of behavior shown in `addons/web/static/tests/views/kanban_view_tests.js`.
It was introduced very recently, by myself, in
odoo/odoo#100806
I revert this possibility to set readonly="0" on a field node in a
kanban view, because:
- First, this is not used anywhere in both odoo/odoo and
odoo/enterprise.
- Second, this really makes things harder if we want to do so:
- as readonly="0" is passed, the "readonly" gets removed from the node
modifiers, as they are simplified by removing falsy value:
modifiers="{'invisible: True, 'readonly': False}" becomes modifiers="{'invisible': True}"
- as readonly in not amongst the modifiers, it fallbacks on the model
field property, in the javascript code, which is readonly: True.
- the thing to do would be to still transfer "readonly"
from the field attributes to the node modifiers.
- which either mean to consider a kanban view as editable
- this will cause issues because the validation mechanism
will suddenly check the domain attribute property
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/d4a92b112d0554a2624f7768feb7d54e0484469f/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_ui_view.py#L1443
and there will be plenty of views where some field used in the
domains will be missing. Besides it is pointless to validate these
domains as they are completely unused in kanban views
- either mean to find another mechanism than "editable" to decide
wheter to transfer the modifiers "readonly"/"required" or not,
which over-complicates things.
- besides only "readonly" would need to be passed, not "required.
So, to keep the code stupid simple, I remove this possibility added only
a few days ago, which is actually not used anywhere in standard for the
moment.
closesodoo/odoo#102221
X-original-commit: 69c3d5aa25655173ed66a52570559322c650c7df
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
Setting the attributes `can_create` and `can_write` in views
which are not editable is useless as you cannot edit the record
in these views.
This allow to gain some KB when serving the view to the web client,
as well as making the view cleaner.
e.g. the graph view in the CRM > My Pipeline menu
Before:
```xml
<graph string="Opportunities" sample="1">
<field name="stage_id" can_create="true" can_write="true"/>
<field name="user_id" on_change="1" can_create="true" can_write="true"/>
<field name="color" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
</graph>
```
After:
```xml
<graph string="Opportunities" sample="1">
<field name="stage_id"/>
<field name="user_id" on_change="1"/>
<field name="color" modifiers="{"invisible": true}"/>
</graph>
```
This revision takes the opportunity to port the `editable` concept
from the server to the web client MockServer,
in order to be able to test the removal of these attributes from the views
in the QUnit tests.
The `_editableNode` JS function added here is the translation of the
existing `def _editable_node` method in `addons/base/models/ir_ui_view.py`
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f5edde3624f4fe40f87cc7fed7dcfc4bbce1f19f/odoo/addons/base/models/ir_ui_view.py#L1282-L1301closesodoo/odoo#101902
X-original-commit: f0beddf534a57e972ac3a7bef6afa1caae1dcff3
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
Before this commit, in a Kanban view, the group representing
a new column did not contain a domain. Its domain should have combined
the view domain and the groupBy domain ([groupByField.name, "=", id]).
How to reproduce:
- Go to a grouped kanban view with a progress bar
- Create a new column
- Create a record in this new column
- Click on the progress bar to filter the records on a state
Before this commit:
All records corresponding to the selected state are displayed in the
column. (even the records that are not part of the column)
After this commit:
Only the new record is displayed in the column.
closesodoo/odoo#101096
X-original-commit: 1022262c6fcd51c8d4fc8024217542bb1f536d2c
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
Following odoo/odoo@4636620004
`get_views` only pass the model fields included in the view architecture,
except for the main model when the search views is requested.
Because the search views requires all fields for the user to be able
to make advanced filters and advanced group by using any fields of the
model.
However, other views requires more field descriptions as well than
just the fields included in their architecture:
- the graph view requires all integer and float fields,
to automatically add suggestions of measures in the measures dropdown
menu. It's a bit like the search view, the user should be able
to choose any measure available in the model
(as long as this is integer or float fields)
- the pivot view requires all groupable fields,
so the user can group by any groupable fields of the model.
The JS MockServer `getViews` is adapted to include the changes added by the above
revision as well as the current revision,
for the qunit tests suite to be able to reflect these API changes
from the server side.
closesodoo/odoo#100376
Related: odoo/enterprise#31427
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
This commit aims to make the behavior of the mocked 'read_progress_bar'
requests closer to their server implementation.
Namely, the returned dictionnary is supposed to contains the display
names of the current groups in its keys. This was not the case and has
been fixed.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#100149
XML files are now declared in python module manifests. During the qweb
't-call-asset' directive, assetbundle will fetch the declared xml files,
apply the inheritance (t-inherit) and create a javascript service (for
eg: 'web.assets_backend.bundle.xml') which is added at the end of the
*.js mimifier file.
When the debug mode is activated, comments are added in the template
indicating which file the template comes from as well as the
inheritances applied to it.
****
JavaScript:
assets.js (module @web/core/assets) takes care of loading libraries,
javascripts and styles.
`loadJS(url)` (loads the javascript and returns a resolved promise when
the templates are also loaded via the '*.bundle.xml' service)
`loadCSS(url)` (loads the style a resolved promise when the file is
loaded)
`loadXML(xml, app=assets.defaultApp)` (load template into
application/owl, used by the `*.bundle.xml` services)
`getBundle(bundleName)` (get the bundle descriptor)
`loadBundle(desc)` (load the files and bundle from a descriptor)
templates (XML element content all owl templates)
A new `ready(serviceName)` method on boot.js lets you know when a
service is loaded are the require.
The xmlDependencies attribute no longer exists.
Python:
The xmls taken into account by assetbundle.py, applying `t-inherit`
inheritances and adding an `name_of_the_bundle.bundle.xml` service in
the generated JavaScript file.
****
Every manifest changes is into the next commit, except 'web_tour' in
this current commit as example.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#95500
PR [1] removes some `<field/>` node attributes from view archs that
were transfered into the `modifiers` attribute (e.g. `invisible`).
However, the `invisible` attribute was still used in some views
(e.g. graph, pivot, search and cohort). This issue hasn't been
spotted by the tests as the MockServer was still sending archs
with both `invisible` and `modifiers` attributes.
This commit adapts the MockServer to make it behave like the real
server, which makes some tests fail, and adapts the impacted
views to make them look into the `modifiers` attribute, which fixes
the failing tests.
Closesodoo/odoo#99920
[1] odoo/odoo#99619closesodoo/odoo#99948
Related: odoo/enterprise#31220
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Duckerts-Antoine <dam@odoo.com>
The goal is to improve the dates utility functions (parse/format) by removing the timezone option, which is difficult to understand and has proven to be error prone.
- Rationale
When manipulating DateTime objects on the JS side, associated timezones
must be always coherent.
Until now, there were several code parts that had to check the DateTime
timezone and handle things differently in a case or another.
This sometimes lead to wrong code.
E.g. there was a bug in the DatePicker component because the DateTime
object it receives in props is in local timezone, but once it updates it
through the parse utility, the new object is in UTC.
- After this commit
The DateTime objects you'll get through deserialization or parsing are
always set in the user's local timezone.
The formatted strings you'll get through formatDate and formatDateTime
utils will always be expressed in the user's local timezone.
The formatted strings you'll get through serialization utils will always
be expressed in UTC.
- serializeDate and serializeDateTime
- expected input: a DateTime object (its timezone does not matter)
- outputs: a string formatted for the server expressed in UTC
- formatDate and formatDateTime
- expected input: a DateTime object (its timezone does not matter)
- outputs: a string formatted for the user, expressed in the user's TZ
- deserializeDate and deserializeDateTime
- expected input: a date(time) string provided by the server, in UTC
- outputs: a DateTime object in user's TZ
- parseDate and parseDateTime
- expected input: a date(time) string provided by the user, in its TZ
- outputs: a DateTime object in user's TZ
- Other changes in this commit
As the timezone option has been removed from parsing/formatting utils,
all their usage had been adapted in the codebase.
The large diff in dates_tests.js is because some tests were reorganized,
others were removed/adapted/joined.
A test has been removed from daterange_field_tests.js, because it has
no sense: it displays a date field as a datetime, but a date field does
not have any time information.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#98980
Co-authored-by: Julien Mougenot <jum@odoo.com>
*: mail, web.
The pyEnv used during tests is based on the mock server to provide
server like api. This issue is that when creating multiple environments
during tests, a new mock server is created each time. This is not realistic
since in a real world scenario, multiple tabs would share a single server.
In order to make pyEnv work with multiple tabs tests (e.g. multiple env tests),
let's create a single mock server shared between js environment during a test.
task-2053917
Part-of: odoo/odoo#97975
The mock server's mockReadGroup function would not properly compute the
value, range and domain of the returned groups for date/datetime fields.
The value should be expressed in the local timezone,
and the range/domain shoulb be expressed in UTC timezone.
Consider the following:
- a record with a datetime field of value "2016-12-14 12:34:56" (expressed in UTC)
- a user with an UTC+2 timezone offset
- a read_group with groupby "['datetime:hour']"
The corresponding group would have had the following metadata:
- value: `"12:00 14 Dec"`
- domain: `[["datetime", ">=", "2022-12-14 11:00:00"], ["datetime", "<", "2022-12-14 12:00:00"]]`
- range: `{ from: "2022-12-14 11:00:00", to: "2022-12-14 12:00:00" }`
It now has the following valid metadata:
- value: `"13:00 14 Dec"`
- domain: `[["datetime", ">=", "2022-12-14 12:00:00"], ["datetime", "<", "2022-12-14 13:00:00"]]`
- range: `{ from: "2022-12-14 12:00:00", to: "2022-12-14 13:00:00" }`
closesodoo/odoo#96946
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
Before this commit, an error was raised when an invisible button was
found on a list view (for example, if it has a group).
Now, the invisible buttons are correctly managed.
closesodoo/odoo#96963
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
Before this commit, in a ListView, a field containing an invisible
attribute using an expression to be evaluated was never displayed.
Example:
<tree>
<field name="foo" invisible="context.get('notInvisible')"/>
</tree>
The foo column is never displayed.
The solution is to use the column_invisible modifier to know if the
column should be displayed or not. column_invisible contains the
evaluated expression of the invisible attribute by the server.
closesodoo/odoo#97066
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
Doing a `search_count` on millions of records could be very slow. On
large databases, the pager counter "1-80 / 8000000" could take several
seconds just to get the total number of records.
This commit limits the counter in list and kanban views to 10k records,
and shows "1-80 / 10000+" if the limit is reached. If you click on
10000+, it updates with the real count (or if you go up to 10000 with
pager or input value).
The search_count on res.partner of odoo.com takes 4s. With this patch,
it will take ~20ms.
Task 2761165
closesodoo/odoo#95642
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Aaron Bohy <aab@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Damien Bouvy <dbo@odoo.com>
There was an issue with the computed `read_group` `__range` when grouping on
the same date/datetime field on multiple granularities (i.e. month, week).
Since the range was stored with the field_name as a key, the last evaluated
range would override the previous ones.
Impacted Versions:
- master
(- exists since 15.0 but it does not impact the user directly so it has been
decided to fix this only in master, since the API is modified)
Steps to reproduce:
1. Open a list view and group by a date field with at least 2 granularities
2. Open the chrome debugger (network) and check a web_read_group rpc preview
3. Find the web_read_group for groups related to one of the largest
granularities and check the `__range`
Current behavior:
- `__range = {field_name: false}`
Expected behavior:
- `__range = {field_name: {from: range_start, to: range_end}`
Explanation
Since the smaller granularities are evaluated last, and the condition to update
`__range` is related to the field_name and not the granularity, the range is
always overriden by the smaller granularities (even if their value is False)
when grouping on the same field with multiple granularities.
Furthermore, there is a conceptual problem with the current solution: it does
not allow to store multiple ranges when the read_group is not lazy and when
grouping on the same field with multiple granularities.
Therefore, the proposed solution is to use the full groupby keys in the
`__range` to allow storing multiple ranges depending on granularity. The keys
in `__range` would thus match the group value keys and allow more flexibility
if a domain must be forged from the group(s) range(s).
Task-2894519
closesodoo/odoo#95193
Signed-off-by: Thibault Delavallee (tde) <tde@openerp.com>
The call to web_read_group done in _loadGroups was incorrect when the first groupby
was of the form date_field:granularity (e.g. "create_date:day"). The groupby was
sent as a mesure and interpreded as such, leading to an error of the form
"Invalid aggregation function ...".
This was not detected before by lack of manual testing: the mock server used in tests
checks the read group parameters in a different way from what is done server side.
So the error was not visible in the testing environment.
In this commit, we remove the error in web_read_group and improve the mock server
(a bit) so as to make such errors be detected.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#92475
This commit introduces the new kanban, list and form views written
in owl. Even though it contains the implementation of those 3 views,
only the kanban view is activated for now (the list and form views
aren't 100% ready yet, so they aren't added to the view registry).
Alongside the views, the fields (<field name="..."/> in archs) and
widgets (<widget name="..." in archs) of web/ have been implemented
in owl as well. Legacy ones remaining in other addons are supported
in our new views, thanks to a compatibility layer. The goal is to convert
them asap though.
Legacy views, fields and widgets are kept for now, which explains the
number of added lines in this PR (around half of them concern tests).
They are still extended by custom code in other addons, that still need
to be converted (a lot of them are already on the way). Moreover,
they are still used in Studio as well. The plan is to lazy load them in
the Studio bundle when all custom code extending them will be
converted. Studio will be converted for v17.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#92475
Co-authored-by: Aaron Bohy <aab@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Bruno Boi <boi@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Géry Debongnie <ged@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Samuel Degueldre <sad@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Duckerts-Antoine <dam@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Genin (ges) <ges@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Francois (fge) <fge@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Michael Mattiello (mcm) <mcm@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Julien Mougenot <jum@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Perais (lpe) <lpe@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Jorge Pinna Puissant <jpp@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: luvi <luvi@odoo.com>
The mock implementation of search_count returns `false` instead of 0 when the
domain doesn't match any records.
Also, writing some tests revealed the `active_test` context key was not taken
into account.
closesodoo/odoo#93746
Related: odoo/enterprise#28449
Signed-off-by: Géry Debongnie <ged@odoo.com>
Since 43474916 and ff37a2fe, the function `name_get` now returns an
empty string for missing records. This change was not reflected in
mockServer.
This commit also copies the tests of `name_get` on the legacy mockServer
to the "new" one. They were missing.
closesodoo/odoo#92473
X-original-commit: 638fab65cdf7a615138dee1395f54224b3ea1e77
Signed-off-by: Lucas Lefèvre (lul) <lul@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Rémi Rahir (rar) <rar@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Lefèvre <lul@odoo.com>
odoo/odoo#87522 introduced the concept to automatically
inline tree, kanban and form views under one2many/many2many fields
within form views.
The goal being for the web client to make less `get_views` calls.
However, currently, automatically inlined form views
under one2many/many2many fields leads
to more triggered onchanges than before,
triggering more field computations than before,
potentially leading to performance issues
as more fields are computed than before.
Besides, they are not visible in the tree/kanban view
and their computation can therefore be considered useless.
At worst, it can even causes bugs, by triggering computation
in places they were not used / do not handle correctly,
as explained in
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/87522#issuecomment-1132554918odoo/odoo#91878
This revision reverts the behavior to automatically inline
form views, while keeping the inlining of kanban/tree views.
However, by reverting this, we re-introduce a limitation
of the web client behavior regarding onchanges,
explained in odoo/odoo#91935.
This is therefore not perfect,
but at least the previous behavior is back.
In the future, work will be done to re-introduce the automatically
inlined form view, while solving both issues:
- Do not trigger more onchanges than necessary,
- Solve the limitation of the web client shown in odoo/odoo#91935closesodoo/odoo#91968
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
Now that pyEnv is available, using it in the mock_server lighten the syntax.
task-2582313
closesodoo/odoo#90783
Signed-off-by: Sébastien Theys (seb) <seb@odoo.com>
This commit orders the records coming from the mock server the same
way they are ordered by the ORM, while also allowing it to support
multiple levels of orderby.
This has been done to increase consistency in the test suite and provide
a more accurate representation of how records would be returned by the
actual server.
Some tests performed their assertions based on this previous
undeterministic system and have been adapted, either by altering
the base setup or the assertions themselves.
closesodoo/odoo#84718
Related: odoo/enterprise#24509
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
The mockSearch function should not return the list of records for a
domain and a model but the list of ids.
The path "/web/dataset/search" does not exist.
closesodoo/odoo#80835
X-original-commit: 5f6d72e43eaec803eea76927433706dfd5e2be73
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
Since commit 0134495ba5 the reporting
views pivot, graph, cohort are written in full new framework.
Some applications still need the legacy ones, so this commit just implements
the lazy loading of those views.
In stock, report_stock_forecasted has been adapted in order to avoid having
a GraphView override: we now modify the canvas' height in pure JS.
*: board, stock
closesodoo/odoo#76931
Related: odoo/enterprise#21054
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
We refactor the action service and allow the legacy and new views to share
a global state within a same action.
We introduce two new components View and WithSearch along with
the search infrastructure: ControlPanel, FilterMenu,...
Part-of: odoo/odoo#73311
Co-authored-by: Aaron Bohy <aab@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Bruno Boi <boi@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Géry Debongnie <ged@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Duckerts-Antoine <dam@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Michaël Mattiello <mcm@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Julien Mougenot <jum@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Perais <lpe@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Jorge Pinna Puissant <jpp@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Stefano Rigano <sri@odoo.com>
On 00e3cb74c4 the migration of the code to
parse and formate dates on the mock server from moment to luxon was
done. Two issues were introduced on that commit: Parsing a date
displayed on quarter wasn't possible; And the ISO week year wasn't used
to format the date, but it was used to parse the date, for symmetry's
sake, now the ISO week year is used on both.
closesodoo/odoo#75354
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Duckerts-Antoine <Polymorphe57@users.noreply.github.com>
* Add test name when logging missing action ids, makes finding out
which test causes the issue much simpler.
* Suppress the warning emission in the one remaining test which
triggers it, as testing invalid action IDs is exactly the purpose of
the test.
Two internal warnings are features which literally are not (entirely)
implemented, the tests can't be fixed to avoid them. Also augmented
the log messages with which test triggered the log, as it's very hard
to debug the issue otherwise.
As for the qweb debug mode warning, there's no way to disable it
easily because multiple tours explicitly opt into debug mode (with
good reasons), so it's not enough to just bypass the `mode` setter in
the test setup helpers (test_main in POS and main_tests in web), there
would also need to be special workarounds in the 4 modules which set
`owl.config.mode` based on the session's debug mode.
I don't know that this warning is even useful, it defaults to `false`
so the only situation in which this would be relevant would be for a
third-party to use Owl *and* explicitly enable the debug mode *and*
forget to remove it when deploying to production *and* look at their
console.
Before this commit, the "Edit View" debug item only worked for
kanban, list and form views. For the other views, it opened a
blank form view. The reason is that for the other views, it didn't
correctly get the id of the view to edit.
Bug reported in the wowl-bugs pad
closesodoo/odoo#72523
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
In the new mockServer, we add a name to a view (field name on ir.ui.view) when the found view in `fieldsViewGet`
has an id.
In tests data, one would normally specify default views like
```js
views = {
"partner,false,form": `<form></form>`,
}
```
In this case and from the point of view of the business code, the view doesn't really exist in DB
On the contrary, if a developer writes, in a test:
```js
views = {
"partner,999,form": `<form></form>`,
}
```
The returned view from load_views will return that view with ID 999 and, from the business code standpoint, the view would exist
in DB. This is particularly important in studio when it has to fetch a x2m view when none has been inlined in the main view.
This commit is the first phase of the conversion of the web/ JS
codebase to the owl framework. The impact of this commit is two-fold.
First, it rewrites the framework part of web with a new system of
services and registries. Services allow to execute code (e.g. do rpcs,
setup things) before launching the application. They can also expose
an API to be used by other parts of the application (e.g. a notification
service would expose a function to display notifications). Services are
often a good extension point for external modules that want to execute
code at webclient startup. Registries offer another way to extend the
application. They provide well designed extension points to add
elements/behaviors from the outside (for instance, to add a systray item,
an error handler...).
Second, this commit initiates the conversion of the webclient to owl
with a top-down approach, around those notions of services and registries.
The root of the web application is now an owl application. Among others,
the WebClient, ActionManager, Navbar, UserMenu, DebugManager, Dialogs,
services (e.g. notification, ajax...) have been converted to the new
framework/architecture.
Legacy views and client actions are still supported (and used). They
will be converted in the next months, and at some point, the support
will be dropped.
Co-authored-by: Aaron Bohy <aab@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Bruno Boi <boi@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Géry Debongnie <ged@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Samuel Degueldre <sad@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Duckerts-Antoine <dam@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Simon Genin (ges) <ges@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Francois (fge) <fge@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Michael Mattiello (mcm) <mcm@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Julien Mougenot <jum@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Perais (lpe) <lpe@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Jorge Pinna Puissant <jpp@odoo.com>
To prepare the rewriting of the webclient in owl, we move all
current js files of web in a legacy/ folder. This folder will
eventually be removed, as soon as each file it contains will be
converted to owl and moved to the proper place in the new file
structure.
The Many2ManyCheckboxes widget displays all values that could be
in the many2many relation, with a checkbox indicating whether each
value is in the relation or not. It is designed to be set on fields
where the comodel contains a few records (typically, we don't want
to see dozens of checkboxes in the form view). This widget shouldn't
be used on many2manys with a large comodel, as we have better tools
to handle them (like a tree view).
We deal with extreme cases (when the widget is, by mistake, set on
a field where the comodel is huge) by using the name_search limit
of 100: at most 100 checkboxes are displayed.
Before this commit, this extreme situation wasn't correctly handled.
If there were in the relation records that weren't displayed
(because they weren't inside the 100 limit), then, editing the value
by (un)selecting a checkbox would automatically remove all non
displayed values from the relation.
This commit ensures that we keep in the relation all values that
aren't displayed.
Issue spotted when working on opw~2439041
closesodoo/odoo#67400
X-original-commit: 9e9d3aa78c42ad4ffca3b56a28382ed84078cde3
Signed-off-by: Géry Debongnie (ged) <ged@openerp.com>
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
The support for "active_test" context key has been introduced in c2918c1
However, the context key is ignored in many mocked ORM methods (if not all).
This commit adds support for the `search` and `search_read` methods.
Note: this is done to easily write some tests in odoo/enterprise#16363
and it might be usefull to test futures features (or fixes) using this
context key.
closesodoo/odoo#66393
X-original-commit: 0ad1c1631eb233b3e8f98b40f8c0813d0ad7acbe
Related: odoo/enterprise#16447
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Lefèvre (lul) <lul@odoo.com>
The mock implementation of `name_get` does not fully reflect
the real server implementation.
The real implementation is described in tests added in
this commit.
Note: in my wildest dreams, the mock server tests would be run
against the real *and* the mock implementation to ensure they
do not diverge.
closesodoo/odoo#62430
X-original-commit: c8f59bfd5c8ddb7c7abf1108111507e667393208
Related: odoo/enterprise#15017
Signed-off-by: Aaron Bohy (aab) <aab@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Lefèvre (lul) <lul@odoo.com>
The mock server was slicing the records before sorting.
Now mocking a search read would sort the records before slicing them.
This will ensure the records to be loaded with the correct sorting order
when e.g. a load more is applied on a subset.
Taskid: 2196661
Vincent Schippefilt