Wednesday, August 19, 2026
3 changes · saas-19.1
Enhancements to existing features
This change gives automated checks more time to wait for page updates before declaring a failure. It reduces false failures on busy machines without slowing successful test runs, helping teams get more dependable build results.
Original PR description
Before this commit, waitFor, waitForNone and waitUntil gave the DOM 200 milliseconds, which the loop turns into 12 animation frames, while contains() and expect.waitForSteps sitting in the same tests…
Before this commit, waitFor, waitForNone and waitUntil gave the DOM 200 milliseconds, which the loop turns into 12 animation frames, while contains() and expect.waitForSteps sitting in the same tests give 10 seconds. 430 call sites in addons reach these three helpers and 29 pass an explicit timeout, so 12 frames is what the other 401 get. The problem is that 12 frames is less than what the client needs on a loaded machine. Measured on "should remove file from html editor if removed from attachment list", on the wait that follows the Full composer button: - 5 to 7 frames on an idle machine; - 11 to 18 frames over 8 runs with the machine at load 10 to 20, 5 of the 8 above the 12 frames the default allows. Those 5 are failing runs, and the same test at load 13 to 29 fails 6 runs out of 6 with the 200 milliseconds, 0 out of 6 with 10 seconds. Note that a longer timeout costs nothing on a green build: the wait ends on the frame the DOM matches, so it only delays the report of a test that was going to fail anyway. Hoot fails the test itself after 5 seconds, 15 in test_js.py, which keeps bounding a wait that never resolves. This commit raises the default to 10 seconds, the delay a tour step already gets in macro.js and the one contains() and expect.waitForSteps already have. https://runbot.odoo.com/odoo/error/946094 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282702
Some generic validation errors raised by core account models lack enough context to identify which record caused the issue, making FEC imports harder to troubleshoot. This commit improves the two error cases identified for this use case: - `account.account._check_account_code` now includes the invalid account code in the error message. - `account.move.write` now includes the move name/reference and displays human-readable field labels instead of technical field names when attempting to modi
Original PR description
Some generic validation errors raised by core account models lack enough context to identify which record caused the issue, making FEC imports harder to troubleshoot. This commit improves the two…
Some generic validation errors raised by core account models lack enough context to identify which record caused the issue, making FEC imports harder to troubleshoot. This commit improves the two error cases identified for this use case: - `account.account._check_account_code` now includes the invalid account code in the error message. - `account.move.write` now includes the move name/reference and displays human-readable field labels instead of technical field names when attempting to modify read-only fields on posted entries. Although motivated by FEC import, these are generic core validations, so the improvements are implemented at the source to benefit all callers rather than only the FEC import flow. Enrichment is scoped to the two cases above, other constraints/errors across these models are intentionally left unchanged for now, since editing core error messages more broadly should be done deliberately and on a case-by-case basis, not as a blanket rewrite task-5346068 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#281746
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-
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#282062 Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#259935