On Thursday 06 January 2011, you wrote: > Hello Dr.Ferdinand, > > The tree view of account.move.line has been taken according to the > overridden method fields_view_get() in the account.move.line object. So > it takes the field's sequence dynamically and not according to the XML > schema. Hope you will agree with this information. So I am closing this > bug.
Indeed, it is not a bug, but a little-known feature of the "account.journal.view" usage. However, I would vote to keep a "wishlist"-level issue open, to reconsider this perculiar feature in the future versions. If we had a nice way[1] to specify per-record[2] views[3], we wouldn't need that "account.journal.view" and would better use a consistent framework feature instead. Here, I don't question the need to have per-journal views, but the fact that we have a mechanism of view definition unique to the "account.journal" model. [1] wink-wink [2] but not the utterly ugly hack proposed, to pass active_id as a criterion.. [3] some rough examples are already in 6.0 with the "groups=" or "attributes=" _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-expert-framework Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-expert-framework More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
