[17.0][ADD] mail_activity_default_assignee #1509

trisdoan · 2024-11-25T05:21:33Z

No description provided.

github-actions · 2025-03-30T12:37:39Z

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

ivantodorovich

Can you add unit tests?

ivantodorovich · 2025-03-31T13:06:22Z

mail_activity_default_assignee/models/mail_activity_type.py

+        "ir.model.fields",
+        domain=f"""
+            [
+                ("name", "not in", {str(MAGIC_FIELDS)}),


Most of the magic fields are discarded by the ttype leaf, with exception of create_uid and write_uid.
So, I'm wondering, why don't we allow using these for the activity default user field?

Suggested change

("name", "not in", {str(MAGIC_FIELDS)}),

ivantodorovich · 2025-03-31T13:08:02Z

mail_activity_default_assignee/models/mail_activity_type.py

+            [
+                ("name", "not in", {str(MAGIC_FIELDS)}),
+                ("ttype", "in", ["one2many","many2one", "many2many"]),
+                ("model_id", "=", model_id),


Suggested change

("model_id", "=", model_id),

("model_id.model", "=", res_model),

with this change I think we no longer need the model_id field, and so you could drop it to keep it simpler

ivantodorovich · 2025-03-31T13:10:01Z

mail_activity_default_assignee/models/mail_activity_type.py

+        self.default_user_field_id = self.default_user_field_id.filtered(
+            lambda field: field.model_id.model == self.res_model
+        )


to avoid reassigning value for no reason

Suggested change

self.default_user_field_id = self.default_user_field_id.filtered(

lambda field: field.model_id.model == self.res_model

)

if self.default_user_field_id.model_id.model != self.res_model:

self.default_user_field_id = False

ivantodorovich · 2025-03-31T13:16:56Z

mail_activity_default_assignee/wizard/mail_activity_schedule.py

+            res_model = self.env[scheduler.res_model]
+            user_ids = scheduler._get_user_ids(res_model, fname)
+            if not user_ids:
+                continue
+            scheduler.activity_user_id = user_ids[0]


I think you can simplify this bit by reusing some internal methods.
You can drop the _get_user_ids, too..

Suggested change

res_model = self.env[scheduler.res_model]

user_ids = scheduler._get_user_ids(res_model, fname)

if not user_ids:

continue

scheduler.activity_user_id = user_ids[0]

if users := scheduler._get_applied_on_records().mapped(fname):

scheduler.activity_user_id = users[:1]

ℹ️ requirement: add @api.depends('res_ids')

ivantodorovich · 2025-03-31T13:18:36Z

mail_activity_default_assignee/wizard/mail_activity_schedule.py

+
+    def _get_user_ids(self, model, fname):
+        context = self.env.context
+        active_id = context.get("active_id")


See my previous proposal about dropping this in favor of calling _get_applied_on_records, which is based on the record res_ids field

trisdoan · 2025-04-28T09:24:34Z

Hello @ivantodorovich, thanks for your review. I updated, could you take a look please?

ivantodorovich · 2025-04-28T19:37:24Z

mail_activity_default_assignee/models/mail_activity_type.py

+            if not rec.res_model:
+                rec.model_id = False
+                continue
+            rec.model_id = self.env["ir.model"]._get_id(rec.res_model)


Left-over code?

oh ja, thanks, I updated

ivantodorovich

Thanks!

SilvioC2C · 2025-05-15T08:22:38Z

mail_activity_default_assignee/models/mail_activity_type.py

+
+from odoo import api, fields, models
+
+MAGIC_FIELDS = models.MAGIC_COLUMNS


Do we need this?

SilvioC2C · 2025-05-15T08:23:50Z

mail_activity_default_assignee/models/mail_activity_type.py

+        domain="[('ttype','in', ['one2many', 'many2one', 'many2many']),"
+        "('model','=',res_model), ('relation', '=', 'res.users')]",


I would add this domain in the view since it's evaluated according to the res_model field value, and add a constraint instead to check whether default_user_field_id is a feasible field.

Hello @SilvioC2C, it's actually a good idea, we can get rid of onchange

github-actions · 2025-09-21T12:38:59Z

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

vvrossem · 2026-01-15T13:26:40Z

Hello @hbrunn, my apologies for pinging you directly. Could you please reopen this PR and apply the "no stale" label? 🙏

yankinmax · 2026-01-21T13:20:03Z

Hello @SilvioC2C can you pls retake a look at this PR after it was updated?

yankinmax · 2026-01-21T13:21:23Z

Hello @pedrobaeza, my apologies for pinging you directly.
Could you please reopen this PR and apply the "no stale" label? 🙏

trisdoan force-pushed the 17.0-add-mail_activity_default_assignee branch from 03791fc to 2a07a82 Compare November 27, 2024 04:54

github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Mar 30, 2025

ivantodorovich reviewed Mar 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Apr 6, 2025

trisdoan force-pushed the 17.0-add-mail_activity_default_assignee branch from 2a07a82 to f36b067 Compare April 28, 2025 09:23

trisdoan requested a review from ivantodorovich April 28, 2025 09:23

ivantodorovich reviewed Apr 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

trisdoan force-pushed the 17.0-add-mail_activity_default_assignee branch from f36b067 to 250aa06 Compare April 29, 2025 01:12

trisdoan requested a review from ivantodorovich April 29, 2025 01:13

ivantodorovich approved these changes Apr 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

SilvioC2C reviewed May 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

trisdoan force-pushed the 17.0-add-mail_activity_default_assignee branch from 250aa06 to 5b6f429 Compare May 23, 2025 08:25

[ADD] mail_activity_default_assignee

2e60b15

trisdoan force-pushed the 17.0-add-mail_activity_default_assignee branch from 5b6f429 to 2e60b15 Compare May 23, 2025 08:38

trisdoan requested a review from SilvioC2C May 23, 2025 08:45

github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Sep 21, 2025

github-actions bot closed this Oct 26, 2025

vvrossem mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2025

[17.0][ADD] add hr_governance module OCA/hr#1521

Open

pedrobaeza reopened this Jan 21, 2026

pedrobaeza removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Jan 21, 2026

	("model_id", "=", model_id),
	("model_id.model", "=", res_model),


		from odoo import api, fields, models

		MAGIC_FIELDS = models.MAGIC_COLUMNS

		domain="[('ttype','in', ['one2many', 'many2one', 'many2many']),"
		"('model','=',res_model), ('relation', '=', 'res.users')]",

Uh oh!

[17.0][ADD] mail_activity_default_assignee #1509

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[17.0][ADD] mail_activity_default_assignee #1509

Uh oh!

Conversation

trisdoan commented Nov 25, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 30, 2025

Uh oh!

ivantodorovich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

trisdoan commented Apr 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivantodorovich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SilvioC2C May 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 21, 2025

Uh oh!

vvrossem commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

yankinmax commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

yankinmax commented Jan 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

SilvioC2C May 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading