Tuesday, August 4, 2026
4 changes · saas-18.3
Enhancements to existing features
### [FIX] website: fix GMaps deprecation console warning for s_google_map Google deprecated the synchronous script loader for initializing the Maps JS API. This caused browser console warnings. The fix adopts Google's official `importLibrary()` bootstrap pattern, which loads map libraries (places, maps, marker) lazily on demand rather than all at once.The version is updated to `v=weekly`, which Google recommends as it receives updates weekly versus quarterly for version numbers(`v=num
Original PR description
### [FIX] website: fix GMaps deprecation console warning for s_google_map Google deprecated the synchronous script loader for initializing the Maps JS API. This caused browser console warnings. The…
### [FIX] website: fix GMaps deprecation console warning for s_google_map Google deprecated the synchronous script loader for initializing the Maps JS API. This caused browser console warnings. The fix adopts Google's official `importLibrary()` bootstrap pattern, which loads map libraries (places, maps, marker) lazily on demand rather than all at once.The version is updated to `v=weekly`, which Google recommends as it receives updates weekly versus quarterly for version numbers(`v=number`). Steps to reproduce: 1. Add the `s_google_map` snippet(not the`s_map`, enable debug mode) 2. Open the browser console and observe the deprecation warning ### [IMP] website: warn user to reload after GMaps config changes Switching from the legacy Google Maps APIs to the new APIs requires enabling additional services in Google Cloud. Existing maps using the legacy API continue to work, but when an admin edits a map without a proper configuration, the `GoogleMapAPIKeyDialog` dialog opens. Google Maps configuration changes (API key update or enabling services) do not take effect during the current editor session because the Maps JavaScript API is loaded at page initialization. Before this commit, such misconfigurations (disabled services or invalid API keys) only triggered a dialog showing a generic Google Maps error. After this commit, a notification informs the user that the page must be reloaded for configuration changes to take effect. The setup instructions are also updated to reference the "Places API (NEW)" service. ### [IMP] website: replace deprecated Places API calls in GPS picker The GPS picker relied on `PlacesService.nearbySearch` and `getDetails`, which are part of the deprecated Places API. The new places API replaces these with `Place.searchNearby` and `fetchFields`. Error handling is consolidated into a single try/catch since the new Places API throws on failure rather than returning a status code, removing the need for `PlacesServiceStatus` checks. ### [IMP] website, *: replace deprecated Google Autocomplete *: website_form_project google.maps.places.Autocomplete is deprecated in the new Places API. The replacement (`AutocompleteSuggestion.fetchAutocompleteSuggestions`) does not fire DOM events, making it incompatible with the old event-listener pattern used in GPSPicker. A new Owl component (`PlacesAutoComplete`) is introduced to wrap the new API, built on top of the existing `AutoCompleteWithPages`. References: https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/load-maps-js-api https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/advanced-markers/migration https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/legacy/places-migration-overview task-[4441041](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/4441041) Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278344 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#242765
Before this commit, contains() and its variants gave the client 3 seconds, and the bus helpers 2 seconds. The problem is that the first wait after openDiscuss pays for the whole mount, /mail/data and /discuss/channel/messages. Measured from openDiscuss resolving to the message being in the DOM: - 250 to 460ms on an idle machine; - 867 to 5258ms over 10 runs with the CPU throttled 4x, which is what a busy runbot looks like, 3 of the 10 over 2 seconds; - 1474 to 6912ms with the CPU throttl
Original PR description
Before this commit, contains() and its variants gave the client 3 seconds, and the bus helpers 2 seconds. The problem is that the first wait after openDiscuss pays for the whole mount, /mail/data and…
Before this commit, contains() and its variants gave the client 3 seconds, and the bus helpers 2 seconds. The problem is that the first wait after openDiscuss pays for the whole mount, /mail/data and /discuss/channel/messages. Measured from openDiscuss resolving to the message being in the DOM:
- 250 to 460ms on an idle machine;
- 867 to 5258ms over 10 runs with the CPU throttled 4x, which is what a
busy runbot looks like, 3 of the 10 over 2 seconds;
- 1474 to 6912ms with the CPU throttled 6x, 5 of 6 over 3 seconds.
"Reactions are ordered by id" fails 1 run in 60 at 4x for that reason.
Note that a longer timeout costs nothing on a green build: the timer is cleared as soon as the element is there, so it only delays the report of a test that was going to fail anyway.
This commit raises both to 10 seconds, the delay a tour step already gets in macro.js. test_js.py runs the presets with timeout=15000, so hoot fails the test itself at 15 seconds and 10 leaves room for the rest of the test.
This should also close most of the open runbot errors shaped like:
Failed to find x of "..." (Timeout of 3 seconds). Found 0 instead.
The element does show up in those, just after the wait gave up.
https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/944188
web companion https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/279984
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279983This PR handles 2 cases : ===== PART 1 ===== Self-billing bill sequences should be unique per partner, as implemented in v19+. This PR backports that behavior to 17.0. ===== PART 2 ===== Previously, the `is_self_billing` option on `account.journal` was available only for purchase journals. This caused an issue when importing a self-billing invoice into a regular sales journal with quick edit mode (accounting firm) enabled. In such cases, the newly created invoices would use the self-
Original PR description
This PR handles 2 cases : ===== PART 1 ===== Self-billing bill sequences should be unique per partner, as implemented in v19+. This PR backports that behavior to 17.0. ===== PART 2 ===== Previously, the `is_self_billing` option on `account.journal` was available only for purchase journals. This caused an issue when importing a self-billing invoice into a regular sales journal with quick edit mode (accounting firm) enabled. In such cases, the newly created invoices would use the self-billing sequence pattern, leading to traceability issues. This PR allows the creation of self-billing sales journals to prevent this issue. task-6103142 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#276028 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259935
Before this commit, expect.waitForSteps and expect.waitForErrors gave 2 seconds, less than the 3 seconds of the DOM waits sitting next to them, on the same page and the same RPCs. Over 340 call sites in addons tests reach waitForSteps and not one of them passes an explicit timeout, so 2 seconds is what every step wait gets. The problem is that the RPC chain a step wait sits on takes longer than that on a loaded machine. Measured from openDiscuss resolving to the message being in the DOM: -
Original PR description
Before this commit, expect.waitForSteps and expect.waitForErrors gave 2 seconds, less than the 3 seconds of the DOM waits sitting next to them, on the same page and the same RPCs. Over 340 call sites…
Before this commit, expect.waitForSteps and expect.waitForErrors gave 2 seconds, less than the 3 seconds of the DOM waits sitting next to them, on the same page and the same RPCs. Over 340 call sites in addons tests reach waitForSteps and not one of them passes an explicit timeout, so 2 seconds is what every step wait gets. The problem is that the RPC chain a step wait sits on takes longer than that on a loaded machine. Measured from openDiscuss resolving to the message being in the DOM: - 250 to 460ms on an idle machine; - 867 to 5258ms over 10 runs with the CPU throttled 4x, which is what a busy runbot looks like, 3 of the 10 over 2 seconds; - 1474 to 6912ms with the CPU throttled 6x, 5 of 6 over 3 seconds. Note that a longer timeout costs nothing on a green build: the timer is cleared as soon as the steps are in, so it only delays the report of a test that was going to fail anyway. This commit raises both to 10 seconds, the delay a tour step already gets in macro.js. test_js.py runs the presets with timeout=15000, so hoot fails the test itself at 15 seconds and 10 leaves room for the rest of the test. Companion of https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/279983 to fix https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/944188 kind of issues. Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279984