Skip to content

[18.0][MIG] project_kanban_form_direct_access#1682

Open
Saran440 wants to merge 3 commits intoOCA:18.0from
ecosoft-odoo:18.0-mig-project_kanban_form_direct_access
Open

[18.0][MIG] project_kanban_form_direct_access#1682
Saran440 wants to merge 3 commits intoOCA:18.0from
ecosoft-odoo:18.0-mig-project_kanban_form_direct_access

Conversation

@Saran440
Copy link
Member

@Saran440 Saran440 commented Feb 27, 2026

This PR fixed logic to support project v18

Migration from v17

Note:

selection_023

IriaAlonso and others added 3 commits February 27, 2026 09:47
Currently, to access the project form view, users must click on "three dots>Settings".
With this improvement, users only need to click on the project name.
@Saran440 Saran440 marked this pull request as ready for review February 27, 2026 03:24
<xpath expr="//span[hasclass('o_text_overflow')]" position="attributes">
<attribute name="groups">!project.group_project_manager</attribute>
<xpath expr="//span[hasclass('text-truncate')]" position="attributes">
<attribute name="invisible">1</attribute>

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are you making it invisible to everyone when before it was only invisible to the group_project_manager?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The purpose of this module is to access the project from the Kanban view. To keep things simple, I used the old invisible field and added a new field to link directly to the project. What do you think?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it looks right. Thanks for explaining it to me.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@IriaAlonso Could you clarify the purpose of adding groups? If I change it to invisible, would that work for you?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This restriction is to maintain the same restriction on who can access the form view. But I think all users can access it, I have to change that. So it would be good to keep it invisible.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This restriction is to maintain the same restriction on who can access the form view. But I think all users can access it, I have to change that. So it would be good to keep it invisible.

It is already fixed in the original PR

Copy link

@luisDIXMIT luisDIXMIT left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tested on runboat and LGTM!

Copy link
Contributor

@alexey-pelykh alexey-pelykh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Clean migration. View-only module, nothing to trip over.

LGTM.

Copy link
Contributor

@alexey-pelykh alexey-pelykh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Clean migration to 18.0. The view approach is correct: type="open" replaces the v17 type="edit", xpath targets updated from o_text_overflow to text-truncate matching the Odoo 18.0 base kanban view, and Bootstrap utility classes (fs-4 fw-bold text-primary) are consistent with the base view's styling.

The group restriction removal was discussed and confirmed by the original author -- all users can access the project form view, so invisible="1" is the right approach.

One minor nit:

  • The view record id project_buttom_kanban_view contains a typo ("buttom" instead of "button"). This is cosmetic and won't affect functionality, but it will persist as an ir.model.data external identifier in the database. Worth fixing before merge if convenient, but non-blocking.

Review posted via CorporateHub OCA review campaign

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
<odoo>
<record id="project_buttom_kanban_view" model="ir.ui.view">
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: typo in the record id -- project_buttom_kanban_view should be project_button_kanban_view ("buttom" -> "button"). This becomes a persistent ir.model.data external identifier, so worth fixing while it's fresh.

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

2 similar comments
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants