> That's an end user point of view. I won't argue because that's not the
> most important point for me, even if it sounds a bit like 'we remove
> them because they reveal the flaws of our model'.
>
> So, finally you admit that you broke the o2m relations linked to
> res.partner, and you have to admit that you broke all the community
> modules which were relying on the one2many, expecting that a o2m was
> linked to the correct partner_id. And that without any note or warning.
>
I meant that the problem on views can be "fixed" by replacing the o2m in
views by links / buttons.
But that's "only" a view problem.
The same can occurs in the code, in the logic of the code, and I don't
think any of:
- the official addons
- the community addons
have been adapted to use the 'child_of' instead of the '='.
--
Guewen Baconnier
Business Solutions Software Developer
Camptocamp SA
PSE A, CH-1015 Lausanne
Phone: +41 21 619 10 39
Office: +41 21 619 10 10 http://www.camptocamp.com/
On 04/10/2013 04:26 PM, Guewen Baconnier wrote:
> That's an end user point of view. I won't argue because that's not the
> most important point for me, even if it sounds a bit like 'we remove
> them because they reveal the flaws of our model'.
>
> So, finally you admit that you broke the o2m relations linked to
> res.partner, and you have to admit that you broke all the community
> modules which were relying on the one2many, expecting that a o2m was
> linked to the correct partner_id. And that without any note or warning.
>
I meant that the problem on views can be "fixed" by replacing the o2m in
views by links / buttons.
But that's "only" a view problem.
The same can occurs in the code, in the logic of the code, and I don't
think any of:
- the official addons
- the community addons
have been adapted to use the 'child_of' instead of the '='.
--
Guewen Baconnier
Business Solutions Software Developer
Camptocamp SA www.camptocamp. com/
PSE A, CH-1015 Lausanne
Phone: +41 21 619 10 39
Office: +41 21 619 10 10
http://