An error occurred fetching the project authors.
- 09 Jan, 2017 2 commits
-
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
This was broken since the use of user_id on Person. Also, add a test.
-
- 06 Jan, 2017 4 commits
-
-
Vincent Bechu authored
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
Without this change, "source/a/b" in non-strict mode indexes: (document.uid, source.uid, b.uid, 1) (document.uid, source.uid, a.uid, 0) (document.uid, source.uid, source.uid, 0) This last line does not contain anything which cannot be found by looking at the base category uid column, so it is wasting disk (and index) space, costing performance. But keep indexing a Base Category document if is it not the base category for considered relation. It is not clear whether stopping indexation at the first encountered Base Category document is intentional, or if recursion should only stop when reaching the base category of considered relation. With this change, "source/a/b" in non-strict mode indexes: (document.uid, source.uid, b.uid, 1) (document.uid, source.uid, a.uid, 0) removing the redundancy.
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
It is overkill, and is likely slower than just passing the needed values straight to catalog. Also, rely on duck-typing instad of portal-type-testing. Also, drop unused "spec" and "filter" arguments. Also, expose strict{,_membership} used arguments, simplifying code. Keep catchall **kw for compatibility.
-
- 05 Jan, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Vincent Bechu authored
-
- 04 Jan, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
- 03 Jan, 2017 4 commits
-
-
Nicolas Wavrant authored
-
Nicolas Wavrant authored
-
Xiaowu Zhang authored
erp5_travel_expense: Add transactions view on Expense Validation, Fix/Update transaction generation
-
Xiaowu Zhang authored
-
- 29 Dec, 2016 8 commits
-
-
Kazuhiko Shiozaki authored
-
Cédric Le Ninivin authored
-
Xiaowu Zhang authored
erp5_travel_expense: avoid undefined value erp5_travel_expense: link related to Travel Request instead of record erp5_travel_expense: can use listbox to search related mission in expense record
-
Cédric Le Ninivin authored
-
Cédric Le Ninivin authored
-
Cédric Le Ninivin authored
-
Cédric Le Ninivin authored
-
Cédric Le Ninivin authored
-
- 28 Dec, 2016 3 commits
-
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
- 27 Dec, 2016 5 commits
-
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Romain Courteaud authored
This was only used by listbox. As most fields now render themself as 'p' tag in non editable mode, they are compatible with non editable listboxes to be rendered inside an 'a' tag.
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Jérome Perrin authored
Flush activities before we remove the permission to view document
-
Jérome Perrin authored
In preference fields, do not fallback to displaying the globally preferred value when it's not defined on that preference Some preferences fields have a TALES for `default` that displays the preferred value if the value if not defined locally, something like `python: context.getPreferredX() or preferences.getPreferredX()` . I believe it is a bad idea, we should just display the value defined on the document like on every other fields. Git log tells that over their lifetime, these fields have been changed by @tc @jm @kazuhiko @romain @yusei @aurel so please tell me if there was a valid reason for using this pattern that I misunderstood. /reviewed-on nexedi/erp5!217
-
- 26 Dec, 2016 12 commits
-
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Romain Courteaud authored
-
Kazuhiko Shiozaki authored
-
Jérome Perrin authored
-
Jérome Perrin authored
-
Jérome Perrin authored
-
Jérome Perrin authored
Only display the value defined on the current preference, not need to display the preferred value if not thing is defined on the current preference.
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
-