[12.0] [MIG] product_end_of_life #479
Conversation
|
Hey @tbaden, thank you for your Pull Request. It looks like some users haven't signed our Contributor License Agreement, yet.
Appreciation of efforts, |
tbaden
force-pushed
the
12.0-mig-product_end_of_life
branch
from
ca53242
to
66db484
Compare
|
will push the history again. seems like I messed up my git user for the patch. |
tbaden
changed the title
tbaden
force-pushed
the
12.0-mig-product_end_of_life
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a9e9cfb
to
571a537
Compare
|
found a missing newline... will fix it. otherwise it can be reviewed @max3903 |
tbaden
force-pushed
the
12.0-mig-product_end_of_life
branch
from
571a537
to
15158d6
Compare
tbaden
changed the title
| <field name="inherit_id" ref="product.product_variant_easy_edit_view"/> | ||
| <field name="arch" type="xml"> | ||
| <xpath expr="//group[@name='weight']" position="after"> | ||
| <group></group> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tbaden The empty group is needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nikul-serpentcs as I did not change this part I'm not 100% sure, but most likely for a correct placement inside the view.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tbaden Ok, Can you please check if need then keep as it is, otherwise remove it.
Thanks
|
@tbaden anything else to do? Ping reviewers if you think you are done. |
|
This PR has the |
|
/ocabot merge nobump |
|
What a great day to merge this nice PR. Let's do it! |
|
/ocabot merge nobump |
|
On my way to merge this fine PR! |
|
@dreispt your merge command was aborted due to failed check(s), which you can inspect on this commit of 12.0-ocabot-merge-pr-479-by-dreispt-bump-nobump. After fixing the problem, you can re-issue a merge command. Please refrain from merging manually as it will most probably make the target branch red. |
|
There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
stale
|
/ocabot merge nobump |
|
What a great day to merge this nice PR. Let's do it! |
|
@simahawk your merge command was aborted due to failed check(s), which you can inspect on this commit of 12.0-ocabot-merge-pr-479-by-simahawk-bump-nobump. After fixing the problem, you can re-issue a merge command. Please refrain from merging manually as it will most probably make the target branch red. |
github-actions
bot
removed
the
stale
|
There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
stale
|
@simahawk any idea why the merge failed? |
github-actions
bot
removed
the
stale
| @api.model | ||
| def name_search(self, name, args=None, operator='ilike', limit=100): | ||
| args = args or [] | ||
| domain = [] | ||
| if name: | ||
| domain = [ | ||
| ('name', operator, name) | ||
| ] | ||
| if operator in expression.NEGATIVE_TERM_OPERATORS: | ||
| domain = ['&', '!'] + domain[1:] | ||
| products = self.search(domain + args, limit=limit) | ||
| return products.name_get() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
when i stumbled on this, i did not understand where this came from, and why it had to be added when migrating to 12.0. i then saw that in 11.0, product.product redefined .name_get(), and this called .search(), but this has disappeared in 12.0.
this implementation is quite different from the default .name_get(). isn’t there another way? if not, at least a comment explaining why it’s done like this and its tradeoffs would be nice.
|
/ocabot merge patch |
|
What a great day to merge this nice PR. Let's do it! |
|
Congratulations, your PR was merged at ba1de4a. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️ |
No description provided.