You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The name of the module that has a bug.
base_tier_validation
Describe the bug
A clear and concise description of what the bug is.
There has two tier validation models. A and B, and definition A model has comment, and validate_tier A model and create B model in this method. It will update A model's review_ids fields res_id to B model's id.
To Reproduce
Affected versions:
16.0 verify and maybe others
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
add A model tier_definition and check has_comment.
inherit A model's validate_tier model and insert create B model method.
fill comment and confirm.
Expected behavior
A model will see review_ids in approve state, but now disappear。after check tier.view record, the res_id change to B model id.
The affect code in tier_validation.py -> _add_comment method, 'default_review_ids': reviews.ids.
I fix this bug by override the context, create B model with_context({}), but I think this bug can be fixed by a more elegant way, so I submit this issue let you known.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Module
The name of the module that has a bug.
base_tier_validation
Describe the bug
A clear and concise description of what the bug is.
There has two tier validation models. A and B, and definition A model has comment, and validate_tier A model and create B model in this method. It will update A model's review_ids fields res_id to B model's id.
To Reproduce
Affected versions:
16.0 verify and maybe others
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Expected behavior
A model will see review_ids in approve state, but now disappear。after check tier.view record, the res_id change to B model id.
The affect code in tier_validation.py -> _add_comment method, 'default_review_ids': reviews.ids.
I fix this bug by override the context, create B model with_context({}), but I think this bug can be fixed by a more elegant way, so I submit this issue let you known.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: