1. 12 Feb, 2021 1 commit
    • Jérome Perrin's avatar
      web_renderjs_ui: don't use manage_FTPget to get page code · 5560a450
      Jérome Perrin authored
      manage_FTPget is an API to serve the file content to response, it is not
      suitable to just get the file/page template content like we need here.
      It was causing issues when running through activities, because timerserver
      responses does not have the setBase method, but is also wrong because
      large files are streamed to response directly.
      
      Zope does not really offer an unified API to get the source of page
      templates or files, except the PrincipiaSearchSource method which it uses
      for its builtin search engine. It seems suitable to use here as well.
      
      Also add a test for the case where web pages are in a OFS.File, only
      the case of PageTemplate was covered.
      5560a450
  2. 10 Feb, 2021 4 commits
  3. 09 Feb, 2021 1 commit
    • Vincent Pelletier's avatar
      CMFActivity: Simplify validation queries further. · e4273c58
      Vincent Pelletier authored
      The query planner does not seem to notice that we are trying to know if
      any row exists matching a set of dependency values, and it keeps scanning
      multiple row for each value - which is unproductive.
      So split dependency queries from (pseudo-code)
        WHERE <column{,s}> IN <values{, pairs}>
      to unions of
        WHERE <column{,s}> = <value{, pair}> LIMIT 1
      which produces query plans which do stop immediately when finding a
      candidate row.
      On a serialization_tag query with 40 values and real-world indexations,
      this reduces the number of rows scanned by mariadb from 500 (<10%
      efficiency) to 40 (100% efficiency).
      The produced SQL is significantly larger (~3x, around 500kB on
      real-world sample data, but may vary a lot depending on value length),
      but if this has any effect is is more than compensated by the improved
      query plan efficiency.
      e4273c58
  4. 08 Feb, 2021 3 commits
  5. 05 Feb, 2021 3 commits
  6. 04 Feb, 2021 6 commits
    • Romain Courteaud's avatar
      erp5_web_renderjs_ui: fixup! do not expand every field's div · a4df1d40
      Romain Courteaud authored
      Ensure float/integer field can align right on the listbox
      See cfbc621b
      a4df1d40
    • Georgios Dagkakis's avatar
      erp5_web_service: Migrate DocumentConnection to components · 1fe01629
      Georgios Dagkakis authored
      This was removed from products in previous commits
      1fe01629
    • Jérome Perrin's avatar
      trade: extend "Lines Report" to allow filtering by use · 4723100a
      Jérome Perrin authored
      Nowadays instead of creating many portal types, we use `use` category to
      separate different types of movements, so it makes sense to filter by use,
      the same way that we already were able to filter by portal type.
      4723100a
    • Jérome Perrin's avatar
      trade: delegate size on Base_viewTradeFieldLibrary/my_dialog_mode_portal_type · d8343f59
      Jérome Perrin authored
      Let's be consistent and use the default size.
      d8343f59
    • Jérome Perrin's avatar
      trade: add simple test for "Lines Report" · de0abcb9
      Jérome Perrin authored
      de0abcb9
    • Jérome Perrin's avatar
      Fix Form.proxifyField creating inconsistent proxy fields · ed84c574
      Jérome Perrin authored
      When `Form.proxifyField` is used to make a proxy field from a field which has only a TALES and no value, it creates a proxy field with inconsistent internal data structures where `has_value` method does not work as expected. As a consequence, proxy fields to list fields are often broken in the ods/odt rendering.
      
      Here is a scenario to reproduce the problem:
      
      * add `Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary` ERP5 Form
      * add a `LinesField`, with id `your_test_base_field`. Change `size` to 1 (not really required but I did this in screenshots here)
      * add another `LinesField`, with id `your_test_field` and in this field:
         * set a `default` (`2`) in values, it's only needed to visualise the problem in ods style:
      ![set default and no items](/uploads/0cb9e229b0ca6761bb15f3d8845ea3f8/image.png)
         * set `items` in TALES (`python: [('one', '1'), ('two', '2')]`) , this will be the problem
      ![set items in TALES](/uploads/93d90f57e15afdcca60324675b59086a/image.png)
       * So far, when this is rendered as ODS, everything is fine:
      ![ODS before](/uploads/ce387cd7a5146585104470bf099f890b/image.png) 
      this is also what we see in html style view: ![html before](/uploads/650330951ed286576f8366bbd5c44139/image.png)
       * use the proxify action, to make `your_test_field` be a proxy field to `your_test_base_field`
      ![proxify action](/uploads/9ff7b29141ce7f170f340c842fd76830/image.png)
       * result of proxify action looks good, both for values:
      ![values after proxify](/uploads/a9f7df3cd2d0af1e036aeff352624760/image.png) and for TALES:
      ![TALES after proxify](/uploads/aeaaa45cc9e91e9327781d85ec1efd57/image.png)
       * but after this rendering the form with ODS becomes broken:
      ![ODS after proxify](/uploads/d4e7be3251c596de35333526d4f6277a/image.png) even though it looks fine with html views.
      
      `erp5_ods_style` knows how to render list fields and it uses the "display" (two) and not the "value" (2), this is done [here](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/bt5/erp5_ods_style/SkinTemplateItem/portal_skins/erp5_ods_style/field_ods_macro.zpt#L60) with a check depending on `field.has_value("items")`.
      
      `has_value` is implemented like [this](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/product/ERP5Form/ProxyField.py#L598-611) for proxy fields:
      ```python
        def has_value(self, id):
          """
          Return true if the field defines such a value.
          """
          result = None
          if (id in self.widget.property_names) or \
             (not self.is_delegated(id)):
            result = ZMIField.has_value(self, id)
          else:
            proxy_field = self.getTemplateField()
            if proxy_field is not None:
              result = proxy_field.has_value(id)
          return result
      ```
      
      and like [this](https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/451ce4137dc1d006bc2cd155535523d51a928150/product/Formulator/Field.py#L80-86) for traditional fields:
      
      ```python
          def has_value(self, id):
              """Return true if the field defines such a value.
              """
              if self.values.has_key(id) or self.form.has_field(id):
                  return 1
              else:
                  return 0
      ```
      
      when the value is defined on the proxy field and not delegated to template field, the condition is `self.values.has_key(id)`.
      
      But `Form.proxifyField` when transforming a traditional field in a proxy field does not keep the `id` in `self.values` if it's only needed in `self.tales`. This is the root cause of this problem, if we inspect the field, it is something like this:
      
      ```
      (Pdb) self
      <ProxyField at /erp5/portal_skins/custom/Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary/your_test_field>
      (Pdb) pp self.tales
      {'field_id': '',
       'form_id': '',
       'items': <Products.Formulator.TALESField.TALESMethod object at 0x7ffa705c7450 oid 0x572626 in <Connection at 7ffa42c1a610>>}
      (Pdb) pp self.values
      {'default': '2',
       'field_id': 'your_test_base_field',
       'form_id': 'Base_viewDummyFieldLibrary',
       'title': 'Test Field'}
      (Pdb) self.has_value('items')
      0
      (Pdb) 
      ```
      
      If we edit the proxy field, it will repair itself, because the proxy field edit method maintain `self.tales` and `self.values` consistent, but this is not the case  with`Form.proxifyField`, which mutate directly `.tales` and `.values` and can make them have different keys - which is not supposed to happen.
      
      The problem is that most of the proxy fields we have have been generated by `Form.proxifyField`, so for most of our fields the XML data of business template has this inconsistency. We could have took the easy way and make change `ProxyField.has_value` to understand this case, but it's probably better to fix the data. 
      `erp5_hal_json` also uses `field.has_value` in some places, so it's better to fix at field level and not to address this in `erp5_ods_style` and `erp5_odt_style`.
      
      
      These changes:
       - add a little more test coverage for `ProxyField.has_value` ( at first I thought the problem was only in `has_value`)
       - Fix `Form.proxifyField`
       - add a `ProxyField.checkConsistency` to check that `.values` and `.tales` are in sync - or more exactly that all entries from `.tales` are also in `.values`, because this is what cause the problem with `has_value`.
       - re-export all proxy fields after cleaning up their `.values` and `.tales`, using `checkConsistency(fixit=True)` on all proxy fields.
      
      See merge request nexedi/erp5!1352
      ed84c574
  7. 03 Feb, 2021 2 commits
  8. 02 Feb, 2021 14 commits
  9. 01 Feb, 2021 6 commits