On 03/03/12 10:15 +0100, Cédric Krier wrote: > On 03/03/12 08:53 +0100, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > A Diumenge, 26 de febrer de 2012 19:25:45, Cédric Krier va escriure: > > > On 26/02/12 17:46 +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Reviewers: , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review this at http://codereview.tryton.org/256001/ > > > > > > > > Affected files: > > > > M trytond/model/__init__.py > > > > A trytond/model/workflow.py > > > > > > This is a first try. It will be good to discuss the design. > > > > I've been thinking about the design and I think we can make it more > > generic. > > In fact, I think we can fully drop the "workflow" word and talk simply > > about > > security or permissions. > > > > My proposal is to replace "@Workflow.transition('cancel')" with something > > like > > "@Security.check()" and let capabilities to be checked with "ir.rule.group" > > or > > something similar. > > > > So the security rule would need: > > - A domain expression > > - A group of users > > - A model > > - A function name > > > > So a function with the decorator of a given model can be executed if domain > > expression and group match any of the existing rules. > > So the only difference in terms of possibilities in your proposal is to > use a full domain than just a fixed one based on the _transition_state > field. Why not! But I find that the current limitation force developer > to have a clean "workflow" for the users based on a simple field.
I forget to say that of course _transition_state could be a Function field and then it is possible to combine fields. -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpE3dPxgpsDF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
