Daily updates from Odoo
Thursday, June 18, 2026
4 changes · saas-18.4
Resolved issues and error corrections
This update resolves an issue where creating approval requests could trigger an access error when using suppliers with inaccessible vendors. The fix ensures the system correctly handles vendor access restrictions during the approval process, preventing errors and improving user experience. This change focuses on the product approval workflow.
Original PR description
**Issue** Having supplier pricelists with at least one vendor inaccessible to the current user can trigger an access error when creating an RFQ approval request. **Steps to reproduce** - Have two…
**Issue** Having supplier pricelists with at least one vendor inaccessible to the current user can trigger an access error when creating an RFQ approval request. **Steps to reproduce** - Have two companies A and B and two users u1 and u2 - user u2 only have access to company A - With user u1: - Create two vendors v1 and v2 without any company assigned - Create vendor pricelists for a product for each vendor and assign the company A to the pricelist - Add the company B for the vendor v2 - With user u2: - Open approval application - Try to create an approval for an RFQ for that product (the vendor v1 will be automatically selected) - Save it -> An access error is thrown **Cause** Saving the approval request computes `has_no_seller`, which calls `_select_seller`: https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/views/approval_product_line_views.xml#L9 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/models/approval_product_line.py#L32 https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/blob/03c737685ff6dfc95a8bc72491646774fc426b1f/approvals_purchase/models/approval_product_line.py#L62-L70 Which filtered the right seller https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L759 By preparing the sellers: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L721 https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_product.py#L712 Please note that `self.seller_ids` contains both sellers (even v2) By filtering the suppliers: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c37e76850d3ff790b76493bd1003d80e170bd4bf/addons/product/models/product_supplierinfo.py#L104-L105 But at that point, one of the supplier in `self`, can be accessed, thus an access error is thrown while trying to access its associated `partner_id`. opw-6203910 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120251
This update corrects an issue where sign templates using auto-filled values (like 0 or False) weren't correctly populated. A previous fix unintentionally treated these falsy values as empty, leading to incorrect sign data. Now, the system properly preserves these values, ensuring accurate sign document completion.
Original PR description
Version: - saas-18.4 Steps to reproduce: - Create a sign template with a readonly sign item linked to an auto field. - Use a reference record where the auto field value is 0 or False. - Send the…
Version: - saas-18.4 Steps to reproduce: - Create a sign template with a readonly sign item linked to an auto field. - Use a reference record where the auto field value is 0 or False. - Send the document for signing and try to sign it - Observe that the readonly field is not populated with the auto-filled value. Issue: - Readonly sign items using auto-filled values from a linked record could not be validated when the value was 0 or False. Instead of using these values, the sign item kept its default value. Cause: - A previous fix was added to avoid replacing existing values with empty auto-filled values. However, the check also considered valid falsy values such as 0 and False as empty, so they were not populated into the sign item. Fix: - Only treat empty strings as missing auto-filled values. This allows valid values such as 0 and False to be populated correctly. Since the sign item value is stored in a text field, False is converted to the string "False" before storing it, ensuring it is preserved and correctly available during the signing flow.
This update resolves a bug that prevented receipt printing after the initial order in the Italian POS module. The fix ensures receipts are consistently printed via the payment screen, eliminating a printer deadlock and improving the user experience. The change also simplifies settings for Italian fiscal printers.
Original PR description
Module: l10n_it_pos Steps to reproduce: - In the POS settings, enable "Automatic Receipt Printing"; - Enable "ePos Printer" to make the "Skip Preview Screen" option appear; - Disable "Skip Preview…
Module: l10n_it_pos Steps to reproduce: - In the POS settings, enable "Automatic Receipt Printing"; - Enable "ePos Printer" to make the "Skip Preview Screen" option appear; - Disable "Skip Preview Screen"; - Disable "ePos Printer"; - Set up an Italian Fiscal Printer; - Open a POS session and process a first order. Issue: After the first receipt, no other messages (price display, receipt, open register) are sent to the fiscal printer. A page reload is required. Cause: When "Automatic Receipt Printing" is true but "Skip Preview Screen" is false, a race condition occurs. `afterOrderValidation` triggers a print job while simultaneously transitioning to the `ReceiptScreen`. When the `ReceiptScreen` mounts, it triggers a second fiscal print job before the first has resolved. This creates a deadlock in `toHtml` of `renderService`, permanently blocking the printer queue. Solution: Since the italian localisation sending the receipt to the fiscal printer is mandatory, the printing route is now tied to the "Skip Preview Screen" option. UI settings are adjusted to hide the redundant auto-print checkbox when an IT fiscal printer is configured. Community PR: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/256932 [opw-5979212](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/49/tasks/5979212) Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#120747 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/enterprise#112654
This update significantly reduces memory usage and speeds up the loading of large General Ledgers, particularly when displaying journal lines. The change optimizes how Odoo fetches display names, preventing unnecessary data loading and improving overall system performance. This results in a smoother user experience when working with extensive financial reports.
Original PR description
### Issue Loading a large General Ledger (e.g., during an "Unfold All" action) and retrieving display names for thousands of journal lines (`account.move.line`) causes excessive memory and…
### Issue Loading a large General Ledger (e.g., during an "Unfold All" action) and retrieving display names for thousands of journal lines (`account.move.line`) causes excessive memory and performance overhead. Profiling with `memray` showed that one of the main memory hotspots was located in `custom_label_builder`. **Previous behavior:** Accessing `record.display_name` in a loop without an explicit `fetch()` call triggered lazy computation of the field via `_compute_display_name()`. When the compute method accessed stored dependency fields (such as `name`, `ref`, `move_id`), each cache miss went through `_fetch_field()`, which greedily loaded **all fields sharing the same prefetch group** on the model, far beyond the dependencies of `display_name` alone. This caused the ORM cache to be filled with many unnecessary stored fields for every record in the prefetch set. --- ### Dataset Volume The performance metrics were captured using a dataset consisting of: * **455,694** Journal Items (`account.move.line`) * **19,947** Journal Entries (`account.move`) --- ### Solution Add a single `fetch(['display_name'])` call on the browsed recordset. By calling `fetch(['display_name'])` upfront, the ORM goes through `_determine_fields_to_fetch(['display_name'])`, which walks only the declared `field_depends` of `display_name` and fetches **only those specific stored fields**. nothing more. --- ### Impact & Results | Metric | Before Optimization | After Optimization | Change / Note | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Peak Memory** | ~856 MB | ~223 MB | ~74% reduction | | **Execution Time** | 2.48s | 2.13s | About the same time with multiple tries | OPW-6275158