trytond: Allow to use XML file for views

issue70

[nicoe, 2011-01-24 10:07:44]

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/7001/trytond/res/user.xml
File trytond/res/user.xml (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/7001/trytond/res/user.xml#newcode18
trytond/res/user.xml:18: <field name="arch" type="xml">
Why do you use arch here ?

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/7001/trytond/res/view/__init__.py
File trytond/res/view/__init__.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/7001/trytond/res/view/__init__.py#...
trytond/res/view/__init__.py:1: #This file is part of Tryton.  The COPYRIGHT
file at the top level of
Do you really need this file in order to distribute the data files ?

[ced, 2011-01-24 10:29:55]

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/7001/trytond/res/user.xml
File trytond/res/user.xml (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/7001/trytond/res/user.xml#newcode18
trytond/res/user.xml:18: <field name="arch" type="xml">
On 2011/01/24 10:07:45, nicoe wrote:
> Why do you use arch here ?

For testing purpose to be sure that arch will be cleaned.
I will remove it.

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/7001/trytond/res/view/__init__.py
File trytond/res/view/__init__.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/7001/trytond/res/view/__init__.py#...
trytond/res/view/__init__.py:1: #This file is part of Tryton.  The COPYRIGHT
file at the top level of
On 2011/01/24 10:07:45, nicoe wrote:
> Do you really need this file in order to distribute the data files ?

Removed in set 4

[udono, 2011-01-31 19:51:44]

Patch set 6 works fine for me. Even the view update is working, when I tweak a
view in res/view and restart the server and reopen the view from the menu.

[ced, 2011-01-31 20:01:35]

On 2011/01/31 19:51:44, udono wrote:
> Patch set 6 works fine for me. Even the view update is working, when I tweak a
> view in res/view and restart the server and reopen the view from the menu.

You can just SIGUSR1 the server instead of restarting it

[udono, 2011-01-31 20:21:42]

On 2011/01/31 20:01:35, ced wrote:
> On 2011/01/31 19:51:44, udono wrote:
> > Patch set 6 works fine for me. Even the view update is working, when I tweak
a
> > view in res/view and restart the server and reopen the view from the menu.
> 
> You can just SIGUSR1 the server instead of restarting it

Yes, sudo kill -10 trytond-pid works fine, too. Even without re-login in the
client.

How you will handle inherited views?

[ced, 2011-01-31 20:33:14]

On 2011/01/31 20:21:42, udono wrote:
> On 2011/01/31 20:01:35, ced wrote:
> > On 2011/01/31 19:51:44, udono wrote:
> > > Patch set 6 works fine for me. Even the view update is working, when I
tweak
> a
> > > view in res/view and restart the server and reopen the view from the menu.
> > 
> > You can just SIGUSR1 the server instead of restarting it
> 
> Yes, sudo kill -10 trytond-pid works fine, too. Even without re-login in the
> client.
> 
> How you will handle inherited views?

The same way.
There is already http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/patch/26001/27025

What is not managed is the %()d substitution which is often used for buttons.
But we could fix it later when button will be defined in Python code.

[udono, 2011-07-31 10:33:34]

When is it planned for inclusion?

[ced, 2011-07-31 10:54:15]

On 31/07/11 10:33 +0000, udo.spallek@googlemail.com wrote:
> When is it planned for inclusion?

There is issue with the id formatting, so I will wait for a solution.

-- 
Cédric Krier

B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Email/Jabber: cedric.krier@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/

[albertnan, 2012-08-24 22:16:34]

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/33002/trytond/ir/action.xml
File trytond/ir/action.xml (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/33002/trytond/ir/action.xml#newcode10
trytond/ir/action.xml:10: <field name="name">action_form</field>
What if record's id (ir.model.data) was used instead of adding a name for each
view?

[ced, 2012-08-24 22:19:39]

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/33002/trytond/ir/action.xml
File trytond/ir/action.xml (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/33002/trytond/ir/action.xml#newco...
trytond/ir/action.xml:10: <field name="name">action_form</field>
On 2012/08/24 22:16:34, albertnan wrote:
> What if record's id (ir.model.data) was used instead of adding a name for each
> view?

It will cost one more indirection and also it will prevent to reuse a view.

[ced, 2012-08-25 13:48:04]

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/33002/trytond/ir/action.xml
File trytond/ir/action.xml (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/33002/trytond/ir/action.xml#newco...
trytond/ir/action.xml:10: <field name="name">action_form</field>
On 2012/08/24 22:19:40, ced wrote:
> On 2012/08/24 22:16:34, albertnan wrote:
> > What if record's id (ir.model.data) was used instead of adding a name for
each
> > view?
> 
> It will cost one more indirection and also it will prevent to reuse a view.

Also I think it is always a bad idea to mix 2 concepts because it happens often
that later we need for a specific case to split the concepts.

[albertnan, 2012-08-25 16:32:50]

On 2012/08/25 13:48:04, ced wrote:
> https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/33002/trytond/ir/action.xml
> File trytond/ir/action.xml (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/33002/trytond/ir/action.xml#newco...
> trytond/ir/action.xml:10: <field name="name">action_form</field>
> On 2012/08/24 22:19:40, ced wrote:
> > On 2012/08/24 22:16:34, albertnan wrote:
> > > What if record's id (ir.model.data) was used instead of adding a name for
> each
> > > view?
> > 
> > It will cost one more indirection and also it will prevent to reuse a view.
> 
> Also I think it is always a bad idea to mix 2 concepts because it happens
often
> that later we need for a specific case to split the concepts.

Good arguments. I agree.

The patch looks good to me.

[udono, 2012-09-26 10:27:52]

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/translation.xml
File trytond/ir/translation.xml (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/translation.xml#n...
trytond/ir/translation.xml:226: <field name="arch" type="xml">
Why not move this view to file?

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/translation.xml#n...
trytond/ir/translation.xml:241: <![CDATA[
Why not move this view to file?

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/ui/view.py
File trytond/ir/ui/view.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/ui/view.py#newcod...
trytond/ir/ui/view.py:236: value = self.data
Why not put a DeprecationWarning for this method? Will it stay for longer as a
parallel conception?

[albertnan, 2012-09-26 10:34:05]

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/ui/view.py
File trytond/ir/ui/view.py (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/ui/view.py#newcod...
trytond/ir/ui/view.py:236: value = self.data
On 2012/09/26 10:27:52, udono wrote:
> Why not put a DeprecationWarning for this method? Will it stay for longer as a
> parallel conception?

'data' is needed if we want users to be able to create new views in the
database.

[ced, 2012-09-26 10:51:03]

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/translation.xml
File trytond/ir/translation.xml (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/translation.xml#...
trytond/ir/translation.xml:226: <field name="arch" type="xml">
On 2012/09/26 10:27:52, udono wrote:
> Why not move this view to file?

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/translation.xml#...
trytond/ir/translation.xml:241: <![CDATA[
On 2012/09/26 10:27:52, udono wrote:
> Why not move this view to file?

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/ui/view.py
File trytond/ir/ui/view.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/3991046/diff/63002/trytond/ir/ui/view.py#newco...
trytond/ir/ui/view.py:236: value = self.data
On 2012/09/26 10:27:52, udono wrote:
> Why not put a DeprecationWarning for this method? Will it stay for longer as a
> parallel conception?

Yes to allow customization from the GUI.

[udono, 2012-09-26 11:11:42]

LGTM