delivery usage on party address form and tree no longer visible
With stock module activated in 6.2 I could see the delivery usage check box on the party address form and tree.
In 6.4 or 6.5 I no longer see it.
I see no changes in party_address_form.xml, party_address_tree.xml or party.xml.
This is valid for other usages too, for example invoice usage on party address, or invoice+delivery usages on contact mechanism.
Activity
added stock + 1 deleted label
Since #5834 (closed) the party form is using a simplified form view which is not extended by stock, account_invoice nor google_maps.
assigned to @ced
added accounting gis type::behavior + 1 deleted label and removed 1 deleted label
New review417221003 at https://codereview.tryton.org/417221003/#ps429131003
New changeset 401244e9cb0c by Cédric Krier in branch 'default':
Extend also the simple address form
https://hg.tryton.org/modules/account_invoice/rev/401244e9cb0cNew changeset 98b34575e81e by Cédric Krier in branch 'default':
Extend also the simple address form
https://hg.tryton.org/modules/google_maps/rev/98b34575e81eNew changeset 9da2cb53d5ba by Cédric Krier in branch 'default':
Extend also the simple address form
https://hg.tryton.org/modules/stock/rev/9da2cb53d5baNew changeset 8ba29c892a9d by Cédric Krier in branch 'default':
Extend also the simple address form
https://hg.tryton.org/tryton-env/rev/8ba29c892a9dI found this issue as a regression from 6.2 versions but there is no backport as there is a database update (just xml records).
Can we backport it to 6.4 series? At least we will fix the issue for new databases and the ones upgraded after the fix and it won't break anything for the ones not upgrading.
On 2022-07-28 17:38, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote:
> I found this issue as a regression from 6.2 versions but there is no backport as there is a database update (just xml records).
We are missing people to test before releases.
> Can we backport it to 6.4 series? At least we will fix the issue for new databases and the ones upgraded after the fix and it won't break anything for the ones not upgrading.
It may break existing installation because the fix is spread on many
modules.El 28/7/22 a les 17:47, Cédric Krier ha escrit:
On 2022-07-28 17:38, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote:
I found this issue as a regression from 6.2 versions but there is no backport as there is a database update (just xml records). We are missing people to test before releases.
And we are also missing reviewers to test before commit. But None of them will fix this issue, just maybe future ones.
Can we backport it to 6.4 series? At least we will fix the issue for new databases and the ones upgraded after the fix and it won't break anything for the ones not upgrading. It may break existing installation because the fix is spread on many modules.
Do not understand. The fix is just three modules (of more than 150 we already have) so backporting on all of wont be an issue. Furthermore, the xpath expressions of all modules does not change, so it will work also for current installations not doing the database upgrade. And the database upgrade only adds a new record which may not cause any difference on the current behaviour if the upgrade is not performed. On the other hand it will fix the issue for ones doing the database upgrade or updating after the release.
Could you elaborate what may be broken by the database update?
