-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 161
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[16.0][CHG] fs_base_multi_image: drag and drop fixes #332
Conversation
benwillig
commented
Jan 29, 2024
•
edited
Loading
edited
- create in memory records instead of calling the ORM explicitly
Hi @lmignon, |
@benwillig Why do we need to create the relation on drag and drop? Can we add a relation and save it when the parent is saved? |
@lmignon That's what I wanted to do, unfortunately I didn't find the right way to do it with the new framework. |
075b27d
to
119cb59
Compare
@lmignon I finally found the way to make it work as it was in the old widget. And it also works when saving a specific image directly on the relation record. |
119cb59
to
a0b26a6
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great! Works like a charm.
@bealdav Can you take a look at this? |
Yes I 'll dive in. |
Thanks for this improvement even if don't understand the full details. Nice to see Kanban view completed with some fields. As product.product view doesn't allow to edit images, don't you think that this view could show kanban view instead of tree ? It's a better visual view for users. |
Yes we can display the kanban view by default. What do you think @lmignon ? |
Yes we can on the product.product view. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot. LGTM
Kanban in product.product view is a nice to have I think
It works nicely in prod db, really thanks |
Also this PR #370 seems ok. What do you think ? |
This PR has the |
> | ||
<tree> | ||
<field name="sequence" widget="handle" /> | ||
<field name="name" /> | ||
<field name="link_existing" invisible="1" /> | ||
<field name="image_id" invisible="1" /> | ||
<field name="image" invisible="1" /> | ||
<field name="specific_image" invisible="1" /> | ||
</tree> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is-it the right way to define the kanban?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added a specific kanban view for the image relation model so we don't need to define an inline kanban view here (if this is what you asked).
/ocabot merge patch |
This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it! |
Congratulations, your PR was merged at 1776ecb. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️ |