Merge lp:~therp-nl/openobject-server/ronald@therp.nl_fix_sequence_lp960201 into lp:openobject-server
Proposed by
Ronald Portier (Therp)
Status: | Merged |
---|---|
Merge reported by: | Olivier Dony (Odoo) |
Merged at revision: | not available |
Proposed branch: | lp:~therp-nl/openobject-server/ronald@therp.nl_fix_sequence_lp960201 |
Merge into: | lp:openobject-server |
Diff against target: |
213 lines (+108/-10) (has conflicts) 2 files modified
openerp/addons/base/ir/ir_sequence.py (+97/-9) openerp/addons/base/ir/ir_sequence_view.xml (+11/-1) Text conflict in openerp/addons/base/ir/ir_sequence.py |
To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~therp-nl/openobject-server/ronald@therp.nl_fix_sequence_lp960201 |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
OpenERP Core Team | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+136913@code.launchpad.net |
Description of the change
Fixes lp960201
To post a comment you must log in.
Hi Ronald,
Thanks a lot for the patch and for your patience, sorry it took so long to process it.
Globally I approve your fix, but some parts of it were not suitable for merging in a stable version, and we need a fix in stable versions too. In order to save you the trouble of updating your merge prop and rebasing it on 7.0, Cedric has done it for you in this merge proposal, based on yours: /code.launchpad .net/~openerp- dev/openobject- server/ 7.0-sequence- next-fix- csn/+merge/ 164363
https:/
It's now been merged in 7.0 at revision 4978 rev-id: <email address hidden> (credited to you), with an extra patch at revision 4979.
As a result I'll mark this merge proposal as merged, even if it's not technically true. The essence of the patch is indeed merged in 7.0 and will be automatically forward-ported to trunk soon.
Here is a summary of the changes we did: next_actual' is visible in all views. This required fixing the code to avoid crashing during creation but makes the UI simpler for end-users. This implied a small change to the field label and tooltip too. next_actual" field was visible. The user would only alter or decrease the sequence number if they really meant it. Also the "prohibit_ number_ next_lower" is a nice-to-have that cannot be made reliable with "standard" sequences: PostgreSQL-backed sequences are cross-transactions so you would be subject to a dirty read phenomenon.
- we changed the view so that only the 'number_
- we removed the new boolean flags you added (prohibit_*), both because they could not be added to a stable version and because they were technically not necessary to fix the issue. These flags were also not very useful now that only the "number_
- we changed the default value for `number_next` passed to _alter_sequence() to None, to distinguish "no value" from 0. Otherwise trying to set the value to 0 would be silently ignored. Technically the default PostgreSQL settings forbid starting sequences at 0-, but this is something than can be changed for each sequence, so someone might really want to use it.
Thanks again for this excellent contribution!