- Only invalidate cache for fields and records we modify
- Rewrite query to be more efficient
- Avoid o2m commands to be more efficient; write directly on reverse m2o
With new api, this call is not wanted anymore. The cache is cleared
automatically, no need to clear the whole cache; that's a little bit
overkill and reduce performances.
When "Filter by Periods" is choosen in the wizard, the right periods
must be set in ctx to filter the account moves according to the right periods
opw:674593
If a user syncs his calendar with Google,
and a second user is created in the database by copying this first
user, the Google information of the first user was copied
(The Google account to sync, the token to use, the last
syncrhonization date, ...), which is obviously wrong.
On calendar syncrhonization, which can be done
manually or automatically with the according cron, all
events of the first user were created a second time,
as a second user synchronized the same Google Calendar.
opw-674141
The default account value set for purchases invoices
lines for product of type Service was wrong: It used
the stock account, which is wrong as a Service
as no stock. Instead, it should left the product
expense account, as usual.
opw-676110
When a Google user was invited to one occurrence of a recurring event,
but not to the recurring event itself (and the other occurrences, therefore),
and the user owner of the recurring event did not sync his calendar in Odoo,
the event occurrence could not be synced in Odoo, because it attempted
to attach it to the parent/main recurring event, which was not present
in Odoo.
In such a case, Odoo now syncs the event occurrence as a simple classic
event. In addition, if the owner of the event sync his calendar with Odoo
afterwards, or if the user is invited later to the main/parent recurring event
and then sync again his calendar,
it then attach the event occurrence that was previously
synced to this main event, to avoid events duplication.
opw-676535
When clicking on save several time when editing a view form it can be
saved several times which can be an issue for one to many.
The normal happenstance when saving should be as follow:
-> save (click)
-> wait write result
-> received write result
-> reload the form with updated data and updates buttons
But when clicking several time, it could become:
-> save (click)
-> wait write result
-> received write result
-> save (click)
-> wait write result
-> received write result
-> reload the form with updated data and updates buttons
This commit only reinstate the saving feature once the form is reloaded.
closes#11926
opw-671793
note: no need to forward-port
The user performing reconciliations may not always
have the right to update the corresponding partners,
for example if a partner is also a system user.
Doing it as super-user after verifying that the
user is indeed allowed to reconcile journal items
works around the problem.
Fixes#11931
Without the proper decorator, the method is matched as `cr_ui_context`.
This is because the `guess` mechanism expects a name `res_id` instead of
`record_id`.
For stability reason it is better to add the decorator than modify the signature
of the method.
Closes#11735
When creating assets from invoice lines, the system must check
that assets have not already been created for the related invoice.
If assets already exist then these assets have to be removed.
Used case:
- In the purchase journal, tick "allow canceling entries"
- On a supplier invoice line, set an asset category
- validate the invoice
- cancel the invoice
- set to draft
- validate the invoice
Before the fix: the asset is created twice.
After the fix: the asset is created once.
opw:674674
The pricelist field is not a mandatory field on the partner. A default
value is usually defined for any new partner created. However, if the
pricelist is manually removed from the partner, errors (tracebacks) will
occur in the eCommerce when no pricelist is found.
We cannot make the field mandatory, as it could potentially break the
workflow of some users which are not using eCommerce. Therefore, we
simply log an error message to help debugging.
opw-673453
The dates of an event on the website was always
within the user timezone. If not signed in,
it was within the public user timezone
(which is quite not user-friendly to change)
For this purpose, we weed get the context
from the record (the context used when using
`record.with_context`), and therefore
the QWeb field
`ir.qweb.field.datetime` is slightly altered,
to use the context from the record.
opw-675427
The stock history doesn't take into account internal moves. For example,
in the following situation:
- Receive 1000 products to Internal Warehouse 1
- Move these 1000 products to Internal Warehouse 2
The 1000 products are still recorded on the Internal Warehouse 1.
opw-672277
Oversight of commit bd025cda.
I'm an idiot, I should have checked that another solution was applied
from 9.0 with accounting refactoring. We apply it here as well.
When stock landed costs are divided per product unit, inconsistencies
may arise between the real stock valuation and the stock valuation
account. This is likely to happen when several products are bought, but
these products leave the stock one at a time.
A numerical example is the following: a landed cost of 15.00 is applied
to a purchase of 13 units. An amount of 15.00 is recorded when the
products enter the stock. If the product leave the stock one at a time,
13 entries of 1.15 are recorded (15.00/13 = 1.153846... ≈ 1.15), which
is then equal to 13 * 1.15 = 14.95. In this case, All the products have
left the stock (stock valuation is zero), but 5 cents remain on the
account.
This is of course even worse the higher the ratio is. For example, a
landed cost of 4.00 split into 1000 units sold piece by piece will never
be recorded when a product leaves the stock.
The fix is to record the rounding difference on a specific quant. In the
previous example, instead of adding 1.153846... on the unit cost of the
13 units, we do the following:
- 12 units to which we add 1.15 on unit cost
- 1 unit to which we add 1.20 on unit cost
opw-675222
When the product price is divided per product unit, inconsistencies
may arise between the real stock valuation and the stock valuation
account. This is likely to happen when a product is bought in a UoM
different from the standard UoM of the product.
A numerical example is the following: a box of 13 is bought for 15.00.
An amount of 15.00 is recorded when the products enter the stock. If the
product leave the stock one at a time, 13 entries of 1.15 are recorded
(15.00/13 = 1.153846... ≈ 1.15), which is then equal to
13 * 1.15 = 14.95. In this case, All the products have left the stock
(stock valuation is zero), but 5 cents remain on the account.
This is of course even worse the higher the ratio is. For example, a
box of 4.00 split into 1000 units sold piece by piece will never be
recorded when a product leaves the stock.
The fix is to record the rounding difference on a specific quant. In the
previous example, instead of adding 1.153846... on the unit cost of the
13 units, we do the following:
- 12 units to which we add 1.15 on unit cost
- 1 unit to which we add 1.20 on unit cost
opw-675222
The precision of `former_cost_per_unit` should not be set. Indeed, a
stock move can contain several quants with different unit prices.
Therefore, we should not round the field when stored, otherwise the
difference per unit will not be calculated correctly.
This is a workaround since we cannot change the DB structure in stable.
opw-675222
Makes the fix in f992c8ee19
specific to the view manager of the main oe_application
container, in order to avoid disrupting other view manager
occurrences (such as the ones in modal windows or x2many
list views).
Fixes#11629 (again)
Note: Hopefully the Blink team will fix Chrome so we can
get rid of this hack in the future:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=603507
When setting rules on models having o2m/m2m relationship
between each other
e.g.
- `res.partner`:
o2m `sale_order_ids` to `sale.order`
- `sale.order`
o2m `message_follower_ids` to `res.partner`
an infinite loop could occur if records
of these models referenced records of the
other models in their o2m relationships
e.g.
- `res.partner` ID 68:
`sale.order` ID 9 in its `sale_order_ids`
- `sale.order` ID 9:
`res.partner` ID 68 in its `message_partner_ids`
This revision solves this use case, by passing the already
treated records in the context and checking that the records
haven't yet be treated before making the recursive call.
This revision makes sure to not break the API of methods
`get_data_context` and `prepare_audittrail_log_line`
(a new parameter had to be introduced for the above purpose)
opw-670904
When creating assets from invoice lines, the system must check
that assets have not already been created for the related invoice.
If assets already exist then these assets have to be removed.
Used case:
- In the purchase journal, tick "allow canceling entries"
- On a supplier invoice line, set an asset category
- validate the invoice
- cancel the invoice
- set to draft
- validate the invoice
Before the fix: the asset was created twice.
After the fix: A warning is raised if an asset already exists for the invoice.
opw:674674
Chrome 50 treats percent-height divs inside of auto-height cells as
auto [1]. So from now on it's important that an explicit 'height: 100%' CSS
property is set on parent tds, otherwise you'll end up with elements
with a height of 0.
An extra difficulty is that this new height property on
subwindow-container will result in the element being as high as his
parent table. So the collapsed trick doesn't work anymore in the
customer list.
This has to be done conditionally. The proposed workaround of adding
100% height to parents of affected elements causes issues in IE/Edge
because the effect of adding a height in percent to a table-{cell,row}
element is not defined by CSS [2].
DO NOT FORWARD-PORT!
[1] 8876584335
[2] http://stackoverflow.com/a/27384730
When canceling and clicking on "reset to draft" button a PO with
invoicing method = Based on generated draft invoice, the purchase
workflow led to a shipping exception.
To be in state done the PO must have:
All its PO lines invoiced with _set_po_lines_invoiced
All its incoming shipments done with test_moves_done
opw:673561
Chrome 50 treats percent-height divs inside of auto-height cells as
auto [1]. So from now on it's important that an explicit 'height: 100%' CSS
property is set on parent tds, otherwise you'll end up with elements
with a height of 0.
DO NOT FORWARD-PORT!
[1] 8876584335
A 100% height is not distributed anymore to the children of a table-row
if they are not themselves table-cell in Chrome 50. This breaks the
indenpendent scrolling of the menu and the view manager.
However, setting the `table-cell` display breaks the layout in Internet
Explorer.
When the webclient is loaded by Chrome 50, we load a stylesheet
forcing a `table-cell` for display.
Seems to be related to https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=353580
and 8876584335
Related to e1a99192bdFixes#11629
Nicolas Seinlet
Nicolas Martinelli
Goffin Simon
Denis Ledoux
Martin Trigaux
Nicolas Lempereur
Odoo Translation Bot
Olivier Dony
Adrien Peiffer (ACSONE)
Holger Brunn
Christophe Simonis
Ludwik Trammer
Levent Karakas
Levent Karakas
oihane
Joren Van Onder
Stefan Rijnhart
Simon Lejeune