Skip to content

[16.0][Backport] [FIX] safe_eval: 3.11 compatibility#156438

Closed
hugosantosred wants to merge 1 commit intoodoo:16.0from
factorlibre:16.0-missing-3.11-opcodes
Closed

[16.0][Backport] [FIX] safe_eval: 3.11 compatibility#156438
hugosantosred wants to merge 1 commit intoodoo:16.0from
factorlibre:16.0-missing-3.11-opcodes

Conversation

@hugosantosred
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Backport of #136943 to 16.0 branch

Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses: This fixes the issue #149524

Current behavior before PR: When creating a server action with 16.0 branch throws the error:

forbidden opcode(s) in 'lambda': POP_JUMP_FORWARD_IF_NOT_NONE, POP_JUMP_FORWARD_IF_NONE

Desired behavior after PR is merged: Server actions created without problemas


I confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr

Complement on 1e35315 (odoo#112450):
alongside the split between forwards and backwards jump we missed that
3.11 has a specialized version of each for the `is None` and `is not
None` cases. A use of that was added in standard in 16.5 (odoo#120446) but
more generally it makes sense that server actions would support
conditional tests against `None`, probably...
@robodoo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

robodoo commented Mar 5, 2024

Pull request status dashboard.

@C3POdoo C3POdoo requested a review from a team March 5, 2024 08:04
@xmo-odoo
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

xmo-odoo commented Mar 6, 2024

@robodoo r+

robodoo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2024
Complement on 1e35315 (#112450):
alongside the split between forwards and backwards jump we missed that
3.11 has a specialized version of each for the `is None` and `is not
None` cases. A use of that was added in standard in 16.5 (#120446) but
more generally it makes sense that server actions would support
conditional tests against `None`, probably...

closes #156438

Signed-off-by: Xavier Morel (xmo) <xmo@odoo.com>
DavidFesquet referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2024
When there is a discrepancy of reserved quantity between `stock.quant.reserved_quantity` and `stock.move.line.product_qty` the UserError 'It is not possible to unreserve more products of %s than you
have in stock' is raised.
This discrepancy can be caused by past bug, customization or direct manipulation of `stock.quant` or `stock.move.line` by the users.
Once this discrepancy is present, it will not disappear by itself.

Currently, there is no functional method to fix these discrepancies, the user encountering this message is stuck until they contact the Odoo support team.

Ideally, we would fix every bug related to the reservation so that this UserError almost never appears.
However, even after multiple bugs fixed (ex: #144176 , #154327 ) and multiple years of feedback, the users keep encountering this error and keep getting stuck when validating/cancelling transfers.

So the idea is to re-introduce a server action like it was done for Odoo 13 & Odoo 14 2 years ago: d99e173 to the current stable version (except the latest one Odoo 17 as we do not have enough perspectives on this version).

The server action checks all the quants and their relative move line to check if match correctly. If not, it will remove the reservation from both.
It could remove the reservation from some unrelated `pickings` and `stock.move`

Forward-Port of #79180
Related to #62139

closes #155910

X-original-commit: e16cd27
Signed-off-by: David Fesquet (dafr) <dafr@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
@robodoo robodoo closed this Mar 6, 2024
gamarino pushed a commit to numaes/numa-public-odoo that referenced this pull request Mar 9, 2024
Complement on 1e35315 (#112450):
alongside the split between forwards and backwards jump we missed that
3.11 has a specialized version of each for the `is None` and `is not
None` cases. A use of that was added in standard in 16.5 (#120446) but
more generally it makes sense that server actions would support
conditional tests against `None`, probably...

closes odoo/odoo#156438

Signed-off-by: Xavier Morel (xmo) <xmo@odoo.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants