Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 03.03.2011, 22:52 +0100 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> On 03/03/11 19:21 +0100, Udo Spallek wrote:
> > good idea to bring ir.defaults into discussion.
> > Am Donnerstag, den 03.03.2011, 18:27 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Évrard:
[...]
> > >      - Can break workflow or other stuffs: A user can set as default
> > >        the value of states to a certain state and thus it might break
> > >        some logic that relies on this field.
> > Here I would avoid to set defaults for readonly fields. But I do not
> > know if it is easy to do, since we have the states attribute on fields.
> This is not enough. You must understand that this feature allow to overide any
> coded default value. This is a bad design as it brings on two places the same
> concept/behavior.
As far as I understand a system default is different from a company default 
or a user default. But you are right, it is not a good idea to allow user
defaults everywhere.

> > > Moreover it seems that the current use of this feature can be replaced
> > > either by:
> > >      - making tryton's modules more clever
> > I can not imagine how to bring ir.default functionality from clever
> > modules? Could you explain, please. 
> > Think about one sales person for French customers will have default
> > language 'French' on new parties. And the sales person for GB will have
> > a default language 'Englisch' for new parties. This can not be done with
> > better default_<field> methods.
> Exactly.
> We should identify every cases people wrongly used the ir.default and modify
> the code to have a clear way to fix it per example by defining more
> configuration values on singletons, on company or on user. And perhaps some
> will go on specific modules.
Do you mean some kind of functionality, which restrict or declare the
fields/models where the user can set a default? 
So every module has to add some xml to allow explicit the fields a
user/company is able to set as default? 
What will be the order for applying defaults? 
First apply system defaults from default_<field name>, then company,
then user?

> > >      - customizing the company object to set default company-wise.
> > But company is not available for standard user. It is restricted to
> > group company-admin. Additionally it is not so easy to edit a table of
> > fields/defaults then like now, just right click on a field and choose
> > 'set as default'. But maybe I misunderstand, so please explain what to
> > do here.
> > 
> > > Does anybody have strong feelings about this issue or could we go on
> > > with their removal ?
> > I like the right click options: set as default/set default/reset
> > default.
> This is a decoy. This was a fonctionnality that makes think it is powerful but
> indeed it spreads all over the application the business/company rules. So
> nobody could have a clear picture of the workflow, rules etc.
Yes, thats true. And indeed it is very powerful. Yesterday I set a default on 
invoice total amount. Guess what happened... I created a new invoice
which had this total amount, even without an invoice line...

So yes, probably the right click functionality should be removed and
replaced by a new default-system on company and user level.

Regards

-- 
Udo Spallek

------------------------------------
virtual things
Preisler & Spallek GbR
Munich - Aix-la-Chapelle

Windeckstr. 77
81375 Munich - Germany
Tel: +49 (89) 710 481 55
Fax: +49 (89) 710 481 56

[email protected]
http://www.virtual-things.biz


-- 
[email protected] mailing list

Reply via email to