Saturday, August 15, 2026
2 changes · 18.0
Resolved issues and error corrections
_get_all_addr() feeds the postal address block of generated pain.001 payment files, but does not return the partner's state nor the second street line. The beneficiary state/province and street complement (suite, unit, ...) therefore never appear in the generated file, even when they are set on the partner, and there is no way to fix it from the record. Some North American banks reject wire transfers whose beneficiary address lacks the state/province, so those payments fail regardless of how com
Original PR description
_get_all_addr() feeds the postal address block of generated pain.001 payment files, but does not return the partner's state nor the second street line. The beneficiary state/province and street…
_get_all_addr() feeds the postal address block of generated pain.001 payment files, but does not return the partner's state nor the second street line. The beneficiary state/province and street complement (suite, unit, ...) therefore never appear in the generated file, even when they are set on the partner, and there is no way to fix it from the record. Some North American banks reject wire transfers whose beneficiary address lacks the state/province, so those payments fail regardless of how complete the vendor record is. Return the state code and street2 alongside the other address components, from the partner for the base implementation and from the employee private address for the hr one, so the payment engine can write them in the PstlAdr block. Steps to reproduce: - Install Accounting and enable a generic ISO 20022 payment method on a bank journal - Create a vendor located in the US or Canada with a complete address, including the state and a second street line - Register a vendor payment, add it to a batch and generate the pain.001 file - The creditor PstlAdr has no state/province, and its street line only carries the first street field: the street2 part is dropped Companion enterprise PR emitting the state in the generated file: odoo/enterprise#127958 --- I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
The `modifiers` attribute was used in older Odoo versions to define field properties (invisible, readonly, required, etc.) Since the field already declares these same properties directly [state](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/14.0/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L150-L155) , [amount_tax_signed](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/14.0/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L229) (e.g. `invisible=...`, `readonly=...`), the `modifiers` attribute is redundant and serves no purpose. This a
Original PR description
The `modifiers` attribute was used in older Odoo versions to define field properties (invisible, readonly, required, etc.) Since the field already declares these same properties directly…
The `modifiers` attribute was used in older Odoo versions to define field properties (invisible, readonly, required, etc.) Since the field already declares these same properties directly [state](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/14.0/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L150-L155) , [amount_tax_signed](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/14.0/addons/account/models/account_move.py#L229)
(e.g. `invisible=...`, `readonly=...`), the `modifiers` attribute is redundant and serves no purpose.
This attribute was never added manually by us — it was auto-generated by Odoo Studio when the default view was created. Studio's default views inject `modifiers` alongside the direct attributes. [Here](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/104741/changes/975e875046691c898e8c1acb87d3626cd299e5aa#diff-dfebe5a93e1b8880e88268b024be4c6f106d144b20298d7bb6c4ae09a18bafd0L67-L145)
Also the `modifiers` attribute was fully simplified [removed](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/104741/changes/975e875046691c898e8c1acb87d3626cd299e5aa#diff-849f1ed2a35a8b0b9cdd67f8e34de5d2ea7bf928103a83828587ba7ec14a62e4L52) starting from version 17.0, where views rely exclusively on direct attribute expressions (`invisible`, `readonly`, `required`) instead of the `modifiers` JSON encoding [main Patch](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/104741) Keeping it around in the arch is therefore dead code with no effect.
However it needs to give the error on 17.0+ like this
```
ERROR LOG:
<string>:1:0:ERROR:RELAXNGV:RELAXNG_ERR_NOELEM: Expecting an element data, got nothing
<string>:1:0:ERROR:RELAXNGV:RELAXNG_ERR_INVALIDATTR: Invalid attribute modifiers for element field
<string>:1:0:ERROR:RELAXNGV:RELAXNG_ERR_EXTRACONTENT: Element tree has extra content: field
```
As the modifer has been remove from the field [common.rng](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/104741/changes/975e875046691c898e8c1acb87d3626cd299e5aa#diff-849f1ed2a35a8b0b9cdd67f8e34de5d2ea7bf928103a83828587ba7ec14a62e4L52) RelaxNG schema but modifiers set on fields here root tag is **form**, and the modifiers sit on fields inside a nested list. And Form views aren't RNG-validated from 17.0 till now —
[@validate('calendar', 'graph', 'pivot', 'search', 'list', 'activity')](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f0e58b9324af18d0cf0264aec2886d098e997f03/odoo/tools/view_validation.py#L314) has no form, and there's no [form_view.rng](https://github.com/odoo/odoo/tree/19.0/odoo/addons/base/rng).
Current senario
<img width="998" height="415" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1a678c8f-8401-4e12-826f-9e98f6f2fe20" />
After removing the modifer: it show the same view because of field property
<img width="998" height="415" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1a678c8f-8401-4e12-826f-9e98f6f2fe20" />
After removing the modifer still it shows the **modifiers="{'readonly':true, 'required':true}"** because the modifer is stay in the 14.0 but the 17.0 onwards it was not please see the scrrenshot its field preprty always.
<img width="1003" height="462" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5e833924-b17c-417f-9e63-5a01c185f588" />
This Fix removes the unused `modifiers` attribute from the view arch, keeping only the direct attribute already present, with no functional change to the view's behavior.
Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses:
Current behavior before PR:
Desired behavior after PR is merged:
---
I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#280282
Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#279976