Review: Approve
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~therp-nl/server-env-tools/6.1-mass_editing-fix_dataloss/+merge/201321
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/server-env-tools/6.1-mass_editing.
___
Mailing list: https:
Review: Needs Fixing
vals.get(split_key, False)[0][2]
When split_key is not in vals, we'll have a problem :-)
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~therp-nl/server-env-tools/6.1-mass_editing-fix_dataloss/+merge/201321
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/serve
The proposal to merge
lp:~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product-customer-code-extraction
into lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Status: Needs review => Work in progress
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/7
I set this MP as Work in progress as it is in "Needs Fixing" since weeks.
Please set it back to "Need Review" once you think you are done.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product-customer-code-extraction/+merge/198296
Your team OpenERP Community is sub
Review: Needs Information
Seems great, but why is a BoM mandatory?
One may want to generate such a pricelist over normal products, or do I miss
something?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~agilebg/openerp-product-attributes/adding_pricelist_configurator_by_bom_7/+merge/203026
Your team OpenERP Comm
This is a must read when dealing with regular expressions for emails:
http://davidcel.is/blog/2012/09/06/stop-validating-email-addresses-with-
regex/
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of OpenERP
Community, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.
Review: Approve code review
Great module!
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-adding-stock_production_lot_custom_attributes-lep/+merge/195950
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Review: Approve code review
LGTM
Thanks
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-fix-1259975-migration-lep/+merge/198592
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Mailing lis
Review: Approve code review
Great! thanks.
l.102
I think that
itertools.chain.from_iterable(expand(arg) for arg in args)
is better (does not create intermediate lists)
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/6.1-search-all-prodlot-attributes-lep/+merge/199335
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-attribute-set-create-1256023 into
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Commit message:
[FIX] prevent KeyError if no 'attribute_ids' is present in 'vals'
Requested reviews:
Product C
> Thanks Guewen.
>
> I suggest to copy/paste some or all of the explanation you give on the MP to a
> comment in the code.
>
> Otherwise LGTM.
>
> L
Makes sense! I added some explanations.
Thanks for your review
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-p
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-rights-attribute_set-1254609 into
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Commit message:
[ADD] access rights on attribute.set
Requested reviews:
Product Core Editors (product-core-editors)
Related bugs
The proposal to merge
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-rights-attribute_set-1254609 into
lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Commit Message changed to:
[ADD] access rights on attribute.set
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-at
Review: Approve code review
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/openerp-product-attributes_limit_database_column_name/+merge/194998
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Review: Approve
Thanks LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-french-translation-product_custom_attributes/+merge/191356
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
M
Review: Approve code review
thanks LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-french-translation-base_custom_attributes/+merge/191357
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Review: Approve
> I have one doubt before doing the merge: the change to translatable is handled
> correctly by the core to keep previous data?
>
> Regards.
Never saw problems with that.
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-base_custom_attributes-tra
Review: Resubmit
The merge gives a conflict. Can you rebase on the latest revision please?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/openerp-product-attributes_limit_database_column_name/+merge/188014
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-pr
Review: Needs Information
The MP's target is an Anybox's branch. Is it normal?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openerp-product-variant/fix-pep8-and-relative-import/+merge/186351
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/openerp-product-variant/fix
Review: Approve code review
Made some changes, approve.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/port-add-product_multi_company_7.0-bis-jge/+merge/192872
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
__
Review: Needs Fixing code review
Hi Joao,
In the on_change methods (l.124,135,144), I propose to add the "context=None"
argument and propagate it to the calls (l.138,147). Thus, if someone want to
use the context in a module extending yours, he will be able just be inheriting
the views.
Apart
Review: Abstain
> I'm agree that this is a very specific question that doesn't need to be merged
> to the complete module, but it is also not very practical IMHO if it doesn't
> add so much functionality. It will worth to have it if the module add also an
> agrupation by this category code in main
> Hi sorry for my late answer.
> @Marc, I didn't know about this existing module
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mcassuto/openobject-addons/product_dimensions-
> standardized-translations/files/head:/product_dimensions (I lost some hour...)
>
> @Maxime regarding the product_size, I agree with Humbe
Review: Needs Fixing code review
> Thanks Guewen for the review.
>
> The message is meant to be customized. If you have a way to set it right,
> please share it.
Ok. I don't think we can get it right (on 7.0 we can set web.base.url in
ir_config_parameter, I don't think that already existed in 6
> My mice does not worth do be nice with it, but my wrist thanks you.
s/mice/mouse/
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-base_custom_attributes-wiz-imp-yvr/+merge/193068
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
__
Review: Approve code review
My mice does not worth do be nice with it, but my wrist thanks you.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-base_custom_attributes-wiz-imp-yvr/+merge/193068
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attribu
Review: Approve code review
Fix seems correct to me, the selection needs to have every available models (I
used the exact same function recently).
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-fix-1245875-yvr/+merge/193066
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribe
> Hmm I fear that my MP is not applicable => if we put a required on an
> attribute, it will add a NOT NULL on the column, this is a nonsense when using
> attributes which can be different per products.
>
> However, we could add a field 'required_on_views' or something like that,
> which does not
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~openerp-community/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_custom_attributes-allow-to-bind-on-existing-field
into lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Commit message:
[IMP] allow to create an attribute on an existing (and not manual) field
Hmm I fear that my MP is not applicable => if we put a required on an
attribute, it will add a NOT NULL on the column, this is a nonsense when using
attributes which can be different per products.
However, we could add a field 'required_on_views' or something like that, which
does not put the "
Review: Approve code review
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/openerp-product-attributes_limit_database_column_name/+merge/188014
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
You apply lower() on the string just before the filter, so anyway you can't
have any uppercase chars, that's why I put \W. However, your regexp is more
explicit.
My remark was more on the usage of filter() which is inefficient vs
re.sub().
Thanks for the changes. Approve (I don't remember how to
Thanks for the change!
Why not
re.sub(r'\W', '', string)
Instead of
filter((lambda x: re.search('[0-9a-z_]', x)), string)
?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/openerp-product-attributes_limit_database_column_name/+merge/188014
Your team OpenERP Community
Review: Needs Fixing code review
Hi,
The next time, can you avoid to mix a cleaning and a fix?
Because we can't know where is your change and what it does without parsing and
searching through all the diffs.
Can I propose a better name for the function "set_column_name"?
"safe_column_name" may
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-no-attribute_id-on-option-creation-gbr
into lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Commit message:
[IMP] when creating a new option on a 'selection' attribute, the attribute_id
should be pre-f
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-required-on-attributes-gbr into
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Commit message:
[ADD] base_custom_attributes: required attribute is not honored when defined on
the ir.model.fields and is not
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-literal_eval-domain into
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Commit message:
[FIX] an empty domain '[]' is eval'ed as True and is always used
Requested reviews:
Product Core Editor
The proposal to merge
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-literal_eval-domain into
lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Commit Message changed to:
[FIX] an empty domain '[]' is eval'ed as True and is always used
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp
The proposal to merge
lp:~openerp-community/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_custom_attributes-attribute_set_id_on_template-gbr
into lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Commit Message changed to:
[FIX] the relation to the attribute set should be on the product.template, not
t
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~openerp-community/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_custom_attributes-attribute_set_id_on_template-gbr
into lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Requested reviews:
Product Core Editors (product-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https
Review: Approve code review
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/fix-product-attribute-group/+merge/187814
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Mailing list: https:/
The proposal to merge
lp:~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/fix-product-attribute-group into
lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Status: Needs review => Approved
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/fix-product-attrib
Review: Approve
Thanks for having took care of that.
Seems good to me.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openobject-doc/7.0-community-review/+merge/186295
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/openobject-doc/7.0-community-review.
_
Thanks for the changes.
In the "Merging" section, I think it could be useful to remind that the commit
message defined (if defined) on the MP should be used. It can seems obvious,
but I'm not sure that everyone is aware of that. Conversely, ideally the person
who propose a merge should also pro
On 09/18/2013 04:04 PM, Stefan Rijnhart (Therp) wrote:
> @Guewen: I still think the 3 working days is not very meaningful in a world
> wide community, so I would prefer to go the other way and drop this
> terminology in favour of 5 calendar days.
Good point. Anyway we should drop one or the othe
Review: Needs Fixing
Some comments if you have ideas how to improve them:
--
I find this sentence a bit obscure:
"Avoid resubmitting a MP if not explicitly intended. The MP will lose history
of commit and that make more work for reviewers."
I would prefer but still I'm not sure:
"Avoid to use
> Is not normal to have the localhost url in the messages?
>
>
> +http://localhost:8080;
You should read "Is it normal to have the localhost url in the messages?"
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/purchase-wkfl/6.1-purchase_internal_validat
Review: Needs Information
Is not normal to have the localhost url in the messages?
+http://localhost:8080;
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/purchase-wkfl/6.1-purchase_internal_validation/+merge/170305
Your team OpenERP Community is subsc
Review: Approve code review, no test
Great, LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/base_custom_attributes-inherited-domain/+merge/177243
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
_
Review: Approve code review, no tset
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~mathieu-julius/openerp-product-attributes/openerp-product-attributes-add-rights-and-menu/+merge/176402
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
The proposal to merge
lp:~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/fix-create-attribute-group into
lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Status: Needs review => Approved
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/fix-create-attribut
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/fix-create-attribute-group/+merge/178991
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Mailing l
> Hi Guewen, Sébastien,
>
> I wonder if we should not reuse existing code :
> https://code.launchpad.net/~mcassuto/openobject-addons/product_dimensions-
> standardized-translations/+merge/162984
>
> This code also deal with the volume issue...
>
I agree, we should reuse the existing modules whe
Review: Needs Information
I don't think that openerp.tools.ustr() and unicode().encode() serve the same
purpose.
openerp.tools.ustr() takes a byte string and try to convert it to unicode (with
an optional default encoding or try to guess). It uses the unicode()
constructor.
While unicode().en
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/avoid-to-raise-when-no-custom-attributes/+merge/173897
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~mathieu-julius/openerp-product-attributes/openerp-product-attributes-categ-view-inherit/+merge/173902
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
_
Review: Needs Information
Hi Sébastien,
My impression is that the dimensions should be centimeters.
At least we should have a configurable precision.
I think you can remove this TODO:
#TODO add a function field for volume? an onchange?
If someone need a 'volume' field, he will add it, woul
Review: Approve code review, no test
Thanks for the change
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/mixin-extraction/+merge/151333
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~enlightx/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-bug-1190658-unidecode-dep/+merge/169248
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Mailing lis
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/openerp-product-attributes-fix-view/+merge/168461
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Review: Needs Information
Is it really intended to be merge in
lp:~openerp-community/server-env-tools/6.1-mass_editing and not in
lp:server-env-tools/6.1 ?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~eoc/server-env-tools/6.1-mass_editing-fix_bug_1187937/+merge/167643
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribe
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~eoc/server-env-tools/6.1-mass_editing-fix_bug_1187937/+merge/167643
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/server-env-tools/6.1-mass_editing.
_
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openerp-mgmtsystem/7.0-set-default-risk-formula/+merge/166901
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/openerp-mgmtsystem/7.0-set-default-risk-formula.
___
The proposal to merge
lp:~savoirfairelinux-openerp/openerp-product-attributes/product_unique_internal_reference
into lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Status: Needs review => Work in progress
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~savoirfairelinux-openerp/openerp-p
Set as 'Work in progress', without response from the author since 2 months.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~savoirfairelinux-openerp/openerp-product-attributes/product_unique_internal_reference/+merge/156649
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
__
l.78 the import from `tools.translate` should be from `openerp.tools.translate`
once that fixed, I'll be ok for the merge
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/mixin-extraction/+merge/151333
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/openerp-product-attributes-editable-views/+merge/169235
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
__
The proposal to merge
lp:~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/polymorphic-relations into
lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Status: Merged => Approved
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/polymorphic-relations/+merge/1
I tried to merge
lp:~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/polymorphic-relations, then this
branch, but when I merge this one I have a conflict. Can you check why please?
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/mixin-extraction/+merge/151333
Your team OpenERP
The proposal to merge
lp:~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/polymorphic-relations into
lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Status: Approved => Merged
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/polymorphic-relations/+merge/1
The proposal to merge
lp:~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/polymorphic-relations into
lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Status: Merged => Approved
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/polymorphic-relations/+merge/1
Review: Approve code review, no test
LGTM
Thanks for the change
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/polymorphic-relations/+merge/150725
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Review: Approve code review, no test
Thanks for the change
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/mixin-extraction/+merge/151333
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Ma
Review: Needs Fixing
I'm fine to merge this proposal without changing the nitpickings.
But `openerp.osv.orm.setup_modifiers` has to be called on the fields.
Raphaël, can you just change this please? The merge proposal can then be merged.
By the way, that's really nice to have extracted this behav
Review: Needs Fixing code review, no test
s/osv.osv_memory/orm.TransientModel/
Same remark than the other merge proposal, you should call `setup_modifiers`
when you add a node in the view.
Otherwise, it seems fine to me.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/p
Review: Needs Information
When you build a view yourself, you should call
`openerp.osv.orm.setup_modifiers` on the nodes. (example in
`account.wizard.account_report_common.account_common_report.fields_view_get`).
In your case, I don't think it will change anything, because it setup
the modifiers
> When trying to merge this it brings in a lot more revisions than stated here.
> Not sure what's going on here but it includes revisions made by Guewen, Maxime
> and Alexis.
>
> These revisions seem to bring in a lot of new modules that are not ready for
> v7 usage (still even using __terp__.py f
Review: Approve code review, no test
A little nitpicking:
l.92 I don't think you need to put a backslash here
But it seems fine to me.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/optional_attr_set/+merge/148603
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:o
Review: Approve
LGTM.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/no-stock-dep/+merge/148515
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~opene
Review: Approve
Seems fine to me
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/dont-blow-if-same-field-twice/+merge/148606
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
___
Mailing list: h
When you create a new merge proposal, you can choose a prerequisite branch for
your proposal. That's convenient because it does not display the diff of the
prerequisite.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~akretion-team/openerp-product-attributes/no-stock-dep/+merge/147797
Your team OpenERP Community
Updated the proposal taking into account your comments.
Still, I don't see cases where we are garanteed that 'name' and 'extension' are
in the vals.
When we do a create(), we are able to call it without any of them ('name' is
mandatory, so the call to super() will raise an exception, but it sh
Hello,
> we are double working here, Renato already did part of that work 2 weeks ago:
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~extra-addons-commiter/product-extra-
> addons/7.0/revision/67
The diff in your link was already there in the branch when I did my migration
(the branch is as recent as the Sebast
By the way, there is a LOT of room for improvements on this module.
At least, it installs on v7, but it is far to be very good, in my opinion.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_images-migr/+merge/145630
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to bra
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_images-migr into
lp:openerp-product-attributes with
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_sequence-migr as a
prerequisite.
Commit message:
[MIGR] migration of
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_sequence-migr into
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Commit message:
[MIGR] migration of product_sequence to openerp 7.0
Requested reviews:
Product Core Editors (product-core-editors)
For
The proposal to merge
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_m2mcategories-migr into
lp:openerp-product-attributes has been updated.
Commit Message changed to:
[MIGR] migration of product_m2mcategories to openerp 7.0
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/
Guewen Baconnier @ Camptocamp has proposed merging
lp:~camptocamp/openerp-product-attributes/7.0-product_m2mcategories-migr into
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
Requested reviews:
Product Core Editors (product-core-editors)
For more details, see:
https://code.launchpad.net/~camptocamp/openerp
Hi Joao,
The branch is now rebuild properly.
Have a nice day
Guewen
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~joao-gama/openerp-product-attributes/product_weight/+merge/143710
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes.
__
The 7.0 branch will have the same issue, the 'common ancestor' of the branches
have to be the same than the extra-addons otherwise the merges won't work
correctly.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~joao-gama/openerp-product-attributes/product_weight/+merge/143710
Your team OpenERP Community is subs
Review: Abstain
Hello,
There is a real problem with the target branch lp:openerp-product-attributes/6.1
I had to rebuild it entirely from the history of the other branches.
You can read details here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~product-core-editors/openerp-product-attributes/new6.1/+merge/1436
Review: Approve
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openobject-addons/fix-1100271-membership-invoice-form-view/+merge/143504
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/openobject-addons/fix-1100271-membership-invoice-form-view.
__
Review: Needs Fixing no test, review
Hi,
Thanks for your changes.
You introduced a bug in your revision 53, you can't do that:
3122 + def case_reset(self, cr, uid, ids, context=None, *args):
The keyword arguments should always be after the positional arguments.
Your method will be parsed co
Review: Needs Fixing
Quick eyeball review, I did not reviewed the business aspect.
dubious indentation at l. 647
837 + 'audit_ids':
fields.many2many('mgmtsystem.audit','mgmtsystem_audit_nonconformity_rel','mgmtsystem_audit_id','mgmtsystem_action_id','Related
Audits'),
Just a remark, the re
Oups! good catch! Thanks
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openerp-product-attributes/import-from-addons-extra-trunk/+merge/135473
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:openerp-product-attributes/6.1.
___
Mailing list: h
Review: Approve
So, nobody disagree, I merge this branch without the product_gs1_128 module.
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/openerp-product-attributes/import-from-addons-extra-trunk/+merge/135473
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/openerp-
Hello,
We have to merge this branch as soon as possible because the modules here are
no longer present in the extra-addons branch.
I am going to remove the product_gs1_128 module from the branch because it is
now clear that it will be in lp:stock-logistic-barcode thanks to Numérigraphe.
By the
Review: Approve
That seems fine for me, thanks!
--
https://code.launchpad.net/~openerp-community/web-addons/7.0-web_color/+merge/136214
Your team OpenERP Community is subscribed to branch
lp:~openerp-community/web-addons/7.0-web_color.
___
Mailing lis
Yes, indeed, the `add` in the registry `instance.web.form.widgets` is totally
necessary.
I was surprised because I thought that (widget_name, 'openerp.web_color')
should be (widget key, class of the widget).
Here, the class of the widget seems to be the global namespace of the module
instead of
Hi,
Nice module.
76 + 'auto_install': True,
It means that the module will be automatically installed once someone put the
web-addons branch in its addons-path.
I don't think that is advised for community branches. One may need to use the
branch for another module, and he would have no cho
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
