Daily updates from Odoo
Thursday, August 6, 2026
316 changes
1 change
Resolved issues and error corrections
After removing sale_order_many2one widget https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/0ecaa6e4c359681daf90c1757bcf71ba5e4d305c , there's no need for multiple sale_order_id definitions in the form view. In this commit, cleaning the redundant field definitions and restrict visibility of Sale Order smart button. task-4661781 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280740 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255367
Original PR description
After removing sale_order_many2one widget https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/0ecaa6e4c359681daf90c1757bcf71ba5e4d305c , there's no need for multiple sale_order_id definitions in the form view. In this commit, cleaning the redundant field definitions and restrict visibility of Sale Order smart button. task-4661781 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280740 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255367
2 changes
Resolved issues and error corrections
Before this commit, an internal user opening the public page of a channel they are not a member of could see Discuss move to another conversation while composing, so the message was sent without its text and the tour timed out on it: FAILED: [15/37] Tour discuss_channel_public_tour.js -> Step .o-mail-Message:has(...:contains('cheese'))[data-persistent]. Element has not been found. TIMEOUT step failed to complete within 10000 ms. This happens because every member of a cha
Original PR description
Before this commit, an internal user opening the public page of a channel they are not a member of could see Discuss move to another conversation while composing, so the message was sent without its…
Before this commit, an internal user opening the public page of a channel they are not a member of could see Discuss move to another conversation while composing, so the message was sent without its text and the tour timed out on it:
FAILED: [15/37] Tour discuss_channel_public_tour.js -> Step
.o-mail-Message:has(...:contains('cheese'))[data-persistent].
Element has not been found.
TIMEOUT step failed to complete within 10000 ms.
This happens because every member of a channel notifies it that its pin state changed, self member or not. The member panel loads the members of the displayed channel right after the page, and as the user has no member there, the channel then concludes it is not pinned and Discuss opens the first pinned channel of the sidebar. The text typed before that stays on the composer of the channel it was typed in, while the attachments and the send go to the new one.
This commit fixes the issue by notifying the channel only when the pin state of self member changes. The tour also checks the name of the displayed conversation is unchanged before sending, as it succeeds in whichever conversation is displayed.
https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/944617After removing sale_order_many2one widget https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/0ecaa6e4c359681daf90c1757bcf71ba5e4d305c , there's no need for multiple sale_order_id definitions in the form view. In this commit, cleaning the redundant field definitions and restrict visibility of Sale Order smart button. task-4661781 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280740 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255367
Original PR description
After removing sale_order_many2one widget https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/0ecaa6e4c359681daf90c1757bcf71ba5e4d305c , there's no need for multiple sale_order_id definitions in the form view. In this commit, cleaning the redundant field definitions and restrict visibility of Sale Order smart button. task-4661781 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280740 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255367
3 changes
Resolved issues and error corrections
Since https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/239898 Opening a livechat session in debug mode as a user without livechat access throws a traceback: `Invalid props for component BadgeTag: onDelete is not a function` This happens because `null` is passed to the `onDelete` prop, while the component validation expects a function. This commit fixes the issue. --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280679
Original PR description
Since https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/239898 Opening a livechat session in debug mode as a user without livechat access throws a traceback: `Invalid props for component BadgeTag: onDelete is not a function` This happens because `null` is passed to the `onDelete` prop, while the component validation expects a function. This commit fixes the issue. --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280679
When we create a database with `-i web --skip-auto-install`, we run into CSS compilation errors due to undefined variables `$black` and `$gray-200`. This commit adds these two definitions. opw-6398398 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279753 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279287
Original PR description
When we create a database with `-i web --skip-auto-install`, we run into CSS compilation errors due to undefined variables `$black` and `$gray-200`. This commit adds these two definitions. opw-6398398 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279753 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279287
Steps to reproduce ------------------ 1. Set the company document layout to DIN5008 2. Open a delivery and print the delivery slip The title is missing on the DIN5008 layout, we only have the reference `WH/OUT/00001`. What happens ------------ The DIN5008 layout hides the body title with css and prints its own `h2` instead, from the `din5008_document_title` variable, and uses `o.name` (the picking number) when this variable is not set. The commit 0058d1cf7655 added the title on the
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce ------------------ 1. Set the company document layout to DIN5008 2. Open a delivery and print the delivery slip The title is missing on the DIN5008 layout, we only have the reference `WH/OUT/00001`. What happens ------------ The DIN5008 layout hides the body title with css and prints its own `h2` instead, from the `din5008_document_title` variable, and uses `o.name` (the picking number) when this variable is not set. The commit 0058d1cf7655 added the title on the standard delivery report with `picking_type_id._get_code_report_name()`, but `l10n_din5008_stock` was not updated to set `din5008_document_title`, so on DIN5008 we only get the number. The fix ------- We set it the same way as the other layouts, hence we get back the full title `Delivery Note WH/OUT/00001`. opw-6299248 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#277444
5 changes
Resolved issues and error corrections
# Issue The test `test_absence_management_with_timeoff` fails if demo data is enabled. It was introduced by : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/272089 # Cause `self.env.user` has an 'Europe/Brussels' tz when demo data is enabled. This changes the date used in the `search_count` at then end of the test : 2026-01-14 00:00 => 2026-01-13 23:00 So we check at the wrong date runbot-941523 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279764
Original PR description
# Issue The test `test_absence_management_with_timeoff` fails if demo data is enabled. It was introduced by : https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/272089 # Cause `self.env.user` has an 'Europe/Brussels' tz when demo data is enabled. This changes the date used in the `search_count` at then end of the test : 2026-01-14 00:00 => 2026-01-13 23:00 So we check at the wrong date runbot-941523 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279764
Before this commit, it was possible that get_limited_partners_loading returned a partner if a module that overrode the method was installed. runbot-944636 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280628
Original PR description
Before this commit, it was possible that get_limited_partners_loading returned a partner if a module that overrode the method was installed. runbot-944636 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280628
A `product.pricelist.item` targeting a product or a template that is not loaded in the PoS was applied to every product of the session. `computeRuleIndexes` deduced which kind of rule an item was from the many2one that resolved to a live record. That getter returns `undefined` when the targeted record is not in the local store, so such an item fell through every branch and ended up in the global rules, overriding the price of unrelated products. The targeted record is legitimately absent i
Original PR description
A `product.pricelist.item` targeting a product or a template that is not loaded in the PoS was applied to every product of the session. `computeRuleIndexes` deduced which kind of rule an item was from the many2one that resolved to a live record. That getter returns `undefined` when the targeted record is not in the local store, so such an item fell through every branch and ended up in the global rules, overriding the price of unrelated products. The targeted record is legitimately absent in two cases: the product was archived and removed by `filter_local_data` while the rule itself was kept, and, on an incremental reload, the item domain drops its product and category filters, so items of products that were never loaded in this PoS might be sent to the client. opw-6344491 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279491
Steps to reproduce: - Install employees and attendance app - Make sure there are 2 companies - Make user's employee record for Company B, but not A - Make company A the default company for user - Enable "attendances from backend" setting - Click on the attendance dot (systray) Current Behavior: The dot disappears and you can't check in Expected Behavior: You are able to check in Other bug scenario: If you have employee records in both Company A and Company B, you can check in.
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce: - Install employees and attendance app - Make sure there are 2 companies - Make user's employee record for Company B, but not A - Make company A the default company for user - Enable "attendances from backend" setting - Click on the attendance dot (systray) Current Behavior: The dot disappears and you can't check in Expected Behavior: You are able to check in Other bug scenario: If you have employee records in both Company A and Company B, you can check in. However, you can never check in for Company B as the default company is always selected in the server code opw-6392301 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280168 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#278377
After removing sale_order_many2one widget https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/0ecaa6e4c359681daf90c1757bcf71ba5e4d305c , there's no need for multiple sale_order_id definitions in the form view. In this commit, cleaning the redundant field definitions and restrict visibility of Sale Order smart button. task-4661781 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280740 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255367
Original PR description
After removing sale_order_many2one widget https://github.com/odoo/odoo/commit/0ecaa6e4c359681daf90c1757bcf71ba5e4d305c , there's no need for multiple sale_order_id definitions in the form view. In this commit, cleaning the redundant field definitions and restrict visibility of Sale Order smart button. task-4661781 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280740 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#255367
4 changes
Resolved issues and error corrections
Before this commit, this test sometimes failed because it couldn't find a dialog containing "camera" within 200ms. In the test scenario, we click to open the BarcodeDialog, which uses the BarcodeVideoScanner. The latter, in its `onMounted`, checks whether it has the necessary permission, which isn't the case as the `getUserMedia` function is mocked in the test to return a rejected promise. As a consequence, the `onError` callback given in props is called, which changes the state of the parent
Original PR description
Before this commit, this test sometimes failed because it couldn't find a dialog containing "camera" within 200ms. In the test scenario, we click to open the BarcodeDialog, which uses the…
Before this commit, this test sometimes failed because it couldn't find a dialog containing "camera" within 200ms. In the test scenario, we click to open the BarcodeDialog, which uses the BarcodeVideoScanner. The latter, in its `onMounted`, checks whether it has the necessary permission, which isn't the case as the `getUserMedia` function is mocked in the test to return a rejected promise. As a consequence, the `onError` callback given in props is called, which changes the state of the parent component, which re-renders itself so display "Unable to access camera" instead of the BarcodeVideoScanner. To make this test more robust, we do 2 things: 1) load the zxing library before running the test, which avoids the BarcodeVideoScanner component to load it in onWillStart. 2) explicitly wait for the 2 animationFrames, as in the scenario, we must wait for the BarcodeDialog to be rendered twice, and those renderings are now synchronous. runbot error-237933 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280613
The test `waitForAnimationFrame does not trigger update if interaction is not ready yet` fails randomly (and seldom). The timeout and animation frame are treated together and appear at the same time in the verified steps. This is likely due to the timeout being too close to the animation frame and the task queue resolving them back to back. Giving a larger timeout (1s instead of 100ms) should solve the issue. runbot-939992
Original PR description
The test `waitForAnimationFrame does not trigger update if interaction is not ready yet` fails randomly (and seldom). The timeout and animation frame are treated together and appear at the same time in the verified steps. This is likely due to the timeout being too close to the animation frame and the task queue resolving them back to back. Giving a larger timeout (1s instead of 100ms) should solve the issue. runbot-939992
Steps to reproduce: - From the website editor, open the Theme tab. - Upload a custom font. - Open the media dialog and go to the "Documents" tab. Issue: The uploaded font files appeared in the Documents tab. When a zip file was uploaded, every font it contained appeared individually, along with the generated "CSS font face" attachment. Cause: Fonts uploaded through `/website/theme_upload_font` are created as public attachments. The Documents tab of the media dialog lists every public
Original PR description
Steps to reproduce: - From the website editor, open the Theme tab. - Upload a custom font. - Open the media dialog and go to the "Documents" tab. Issue: The uploaded font files appeared in the…
Steps to reproduce: - From the website editor, open the Theme tab. - Upload a custom font. - Open the media dialog and go to the "Documents" tab. Issue: The uploaded font files appeared in the Documents tab. When a zip file was uploaded, every font it contained appeared individually, along with the generated "CSS font face" attachment. Cause: Fonts uploaded through `/website/theme_upload_font` are created as public attachments. The Documents tab of the media dialog lists every public attachment that is not an image or an asset, so the font files (mimetype `font/...`), their font face declaration (mimetype `text/css`) and googleFontMetadata (server caches it as public attachment) were listed. Fix: Exclude those attachments from the Documents tab domain: - whose mimetype starts with `font/`, - whose description matches the font face declarations created in `snippets.options.js`. - whose name equals "googleFontMetadata". task-[4771523](https://www.odoo.com/odoo/project/974/tasks/4771523) Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#275838
Steps: - Install sale_management - Make sure you have 100 quotations with 1 activity each - Open activity view - Default pager displays `1-100/100` - Activity count display `To-do 80` ActivityController uses `useModel` which passes the raw `component.props` to `model.load()`, including the limit from `ir.actions.act_window` (default 80). This value ended up in `fetchActivityData` via `params.limit || this.initialLimit`, overriding `ActivityModel.DEFAULT_LIMIT` (100). The records li
Original PR description
Steps: - Install sale_management - Make sure you have 100 quotations with 1 activity each - Open activity view - Default pager displays `1-100/100` - Activity count display `To-do 80`…
Steps: - Install sale_management - Make sure you have 100 quotations with 1 activity each - Open activity view - Default pager displays `1-100/100` - Activity count display `To-do 80` ActivityController uses `useModel` which passes the raw `component.props` to `model.load()`, including the limit from `ir.actions.act_window` (default 80). This value ended up in `fetchActivityData` via `params.limit || this.initialLimit`, overriding `ActivityModel.DEFAULT_LIMIT` (100). The records list was not affected because `RelationalModel._getNextConfig` never reads `params.limit` (limit is not a `SEARCH_KEY`), so it always loaded 100 records correctly. But `fetchActivityData` used 80, causing a mismatch between the records shown and the activity counts in the column headers. ```js export const SEARCH_KEYS = ["comparison", "context", "domain", "groupBy", "orderBy"]; ``` The fix strips `params.limit` in `ActivityModel.load()` before passing params to `fetchActivityData`, so it falls back to `this.initialLimit (100)`. The pager `onUpdate` handler calls `fetchActivityData` directly with its own `params.limit` and is not affected. However, `ActivityController` never forwards `limit` to the model. This is why we always have `ActivityModel.DEFAULT_LIMIT (100)` without taking into account actions's limit. To fix this we have to add the limit via `this.props.limit`, as `ListController`. `useModelWithSampleData` already had the correct behavior by calling `model.load(getSearchParams(props))` which filters out non-search params like limit. In 19.0 useModel was updated to do the same, so the issue does not exist there. Link to 19.0 fix: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/211697 opw-6281125 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#273929
1 change
Resolved issues and error corrections
### Steps to reproduce 1. Install *Sales* and *Timesheets* 2. Create a service product: Invoicing Policy = *Based on Timesheets*, Create on Order = *Task* 3. Create a sale order for it (quantity 1) and confirm it 4. On the generated task, log **4.5 h on 15/06** and **3.5 h on 23/07** 5. *Create Invoice* with no timesheet period → 8 h, and post it 6. On that invoice: *Reverse* → *Partial Refund*, set the quantity to **3.5 h** and post it → 4.5 h invoiced 7. Log **1 h on 31/07** → 9 h delivered 8
Original PR description
### Steps to reproduce 1. Install *Sales* and *Timesheets* 2. Create a service product: Invoicing Policy = *Based on Timesheets*, Create on Order = *Task* 3. Create a sale order for it (quantity 1)…
### Steps to reproduce 1. Install *Sales* and *Timesheets* 2. Create a service product: Invoicing Policy = *Based on Timesheets*, Create on Order = *Task* 3. Create a sale order for it (quantity 1) and confirm it 4. On the generated task, log **4.5 h on 15/06** and **3.5 h on 23/07** 5. *Create Invoice* with no timesheet period → 8 h, and post it 6. On that invoice: *Reverse* → *Partial Refund*, set the quantity to **3.5 h** and post it → 4.5 h invoiced 7. Log **1 h on 31/07** → 9 h delivered 8. *Create Invoice* again, with a **Timesheets Period of 01/06 → 31/07** ### Current behavior The invoice bills **9 h**: the 4.5 h that were invoiced and not credited are billed a second time. ### Expected behavior The invoice bills **4.5 h** — the quantity delivered minus the quantity invoiced. ### Cause of the issue Posting a partial credit note clears `timesheet_invoice_id` on every timesheet the reversed invoice had linked (`sale_timesheet/models/account_move.py`, `action_post`), because a credit note carries a quantity and never a set of timesheets, so there is no way to tell which hours it credited. All of those hours therefore become candidates again in `_recompute_qty_to_invoice`, which assigns their sum to `qty_to_invoice` without comparing it to what is still due on the line. ### Fix Timesheet links cannot express a partially invoiced timesheet, so they are used only to select the hours a period concerns, while the quantity that may still be billed is `qty_delivered - qty_invoiced`. The period lookup is capped by that remainder, and kept at zero or above so that an over-invoiced line is corrected by a deliberate credit note rather than as a side effect of invoicing a period. ### Tests Five tests are added to `addons/sale_timesheet/tests/test_sale_timesheet.py`. Three of them fail without the fix: | test | without the fix | | --- | --- | | `test_period_invoice_does_not_rebill_refunded_invoice_hours` | `9.0 != 4.5` | | `test_period_invoice_after_refund_is_computed_per_line` | `4.0 != 1.5` | | `test_period_invoice_after_refund_of_an_over_invoiced_line` | `8.0 != 1.0` | The other two cover behaviour that is not exercised today and that the fix must not break: an over-invoiced line (which must be left out rather than credited, and must not prevent the other lines of the order from being invoiced) and the reversed invoice's own `invoice_date`, which must not influence the quantity billed for a period. The full `sale_timesheet` suite passes (86 tests). Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280536