New definition of Function/Property fields

[bch, 2010-03-04 22:16:45]

On 2010/03/04 19:41:42, ced wrote:
> 

Except for the prints, it's ok for me.

[bch, 2010-03-04 22:16:57]

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/1/10
File trytond/model/modelsql.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/1/10#newcode325
trytond/model/modelsql.py:325: print self._columns[field]._type
Shouldn't be there

[h.goebel, 2010-03-05 09:26:49]

Fine cleanup.

BTW: Where are we collecting instructions for migration to 1.6 (PySon,
Functions/Properties)?

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6001
File CHANGELOG (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6001#newcode1
CHANGELOG:1: * New definition of Function/Property fields
A bit more verbose, please:
New *interface* for Function/Property fields: these now take a field as first
argument instead of many separate arguments.

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6007
File trytond/model/fields/function.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6007#newcode17
trytond/model/fields/function.py:17: fnct_search=''):
Since the interface is changing anyways, I propose renaming "fntt_inv" into
"setter" (same for "funct_inv_arg"). setter is quite common name for the "write"
function, so it'sa easier to understand fro new developers.

[ced, 2010-03-05 10:12:16]

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6007
File trytond/model/fields/function.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6007#newcode17
trytond/model/fields/function.py:17: fnct_search=''):
On 2010/03/05 09:26:49, h.goebel wrote:
> Since the interface is changing anyways, I propose renaming "fntt_inv" into
> "setter" (same for "funct_inv_arg"). setter is quite common name for the
"write"
> function, so it'sa easier to understand fro new developers.

Good idea.
I propose also to remove all the args.
Is "searcher" a good name for "fnct_search"?

[h.goebel, 2010-03-05 11:16:14]

> I propose also to remove all the args.

Okay: args are only calculated once, when the class is build. So they are
somewhat "constants". No need to pass them to the Function() constructor.

> Is "searcher" a good name for "fnct_search"?

A bit unusual, but clear to understand.

[bch, 2010-03-05 11:48:23]

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6007
File trytond/model/fields/function.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6007#newcode17
trytond/model/fields/function.py:17: fnct_search=''):
On 2010/03/05 10:12:16, ced wrote:
> On 2010/03/05 09:26:49, h.goebel wrote:
> > Since the interface is changing anyways, I propose renaming "fntt_inv" into
> > "setter" (same for "funct_inv_arg"). setter is quite common name for the
> "write"
> > function, so it'sa easier to understand fro new developers.
> 
> Good idea.
> I propose also to remove all the args.
> Is "searcher" a good name for "fnct_search"?

What about just "search" instead of "searcher" ?

[ced, 2010-03-05 11:51:40]

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6007
File trytond/model/fields/function.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/231041/diff/5001/6007#newcode17
trytond/model/fields/function.py:17: fnct_search=''):
On 2010/03/05 11:48:23, bch wrote:
> On 2010/03/05 10:12:16, ced wrote:
> > On 2010/03/05 09:26:49, h.goebel wrote:
> > > Since the interface is changing anyways, I propose renaming "fntt_inv"
into
> > > "setter" (same for "funct_inv_arg"). setter is quite common name for the
> > "write"
> > > function, so it'sa easier to understand fro new developers.
> > 
> > Good idea.
> > I propose also to remove all the args.
> > Is "searcher" a good name for "fnct_search"?
> 
> What about just "search" instead of "searcher" ?

Because we will use setter not set, getter not get.
And also because there is a function search define on the Fields, I find a bit
confusing to have args with the same name.