c2c-oerpscenario team mailing list archive

["Olivier Dony \(OpenERP\)" <691541@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

There is no patch needed in the ir.property class, but there was one
case not properly handled: when companies A and B in your example were
not siblings, but company B was a descendant of company A (or the other
way around).

The per-company filtering is in fact implemented by the ir.rule records
that are applied on the ir.property object, and the default rule was
using "child_of" instead of "=" operator. The child_of operator is
appropriate in most cases, but not for ir.property.

This has been fixed in revision 3152
odo@xxxxxxxxxxx-20101222175258-8aesquwk6v9d4lv4, so if you update to the
latest version  (and upgrade the base module), or start with a new
database, you should not have the issue anymore.

Thanks for reporting!

** Changed in: openobject-server
       Status: Triaged => Fix Released

** Changed in: openobject-server
    Milestone: None => 6.0-rc2

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of C2C
OERPScenario, which is subscribed to the OpenERP Project Group.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/691541

Title:
  Company ID in properties

Status in OpenObject Server:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  We did the following test on OE server 6-trunk:
In multi-company mode:
1. the user is working for company A
1. setup the accounts receivable/Payable for a partner
2. change the company the user is working for (user preferences): the company B for example
3. setup other accounts receivable/Payable for the partner (select for the new company)
4. change your user's company: re-select company A
5. reload your partner: the account properties will keep the ones with the highest Database ID, ignoring the company

We've looked at the source: osv/fields.py, class: property
1. the function: _fnct_write( .... ) seems to use the user's default company
2. in the function: _fnct_read( ... ), this does not look really obvious that the user's company is taken into account

We suspect that the write process is correct, and the read process seems to fail

Best regards