10.0 mig auditlog by BT-fgarbely · Pull Request #707 · OCA/server-tools

BT-fgarbely · 2017-01-20T08:12:05Z

No description provided.

… (unit tests, ir.cron...)

…and HTTP requests models

…lete but slow) and Fast log (data input only, faster)

) * [IMP] index the columns we'll be searching for for every request * [FIX] singleton error if we saved the current session two times

- Update documentation to point to the new auditlog menu locations. These were changed because the 8.0 version was referencing menus that do not exist in 9.0 - Change version from 8.0.X.Y.Z to 9.0.1.0.0 - Make the module installable again - Remove an unused parameter from pre-migration.py for versioning - Fix typos and remove commented out blocks of code that were irrelevant

These were updated to follow OCA conventions. - License set to AGPL-3 - Images set to empty array

… required for version 9

…ok exists any more

…hods to the new API

sebalix

@BT-fgarbely Good job! You even updated screenshots 🎉
Tested on runbot, it works fine (fast/full log, subscribe/unsubscribe rules...).
Can you squash all OCA Transbot commits into one?

BT-fgarbely · 2017-01-25T10:50:24Z

Hello @sebalix

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

I don't know how to squash the commits.
I get the commits from the Branch 9.0 according to the migration guide:
https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Migration-to-version-10.0#technical-method-to-migrate-a-module-from-90-to-100-branch

Regards

LoisRForgeFlow · 2017-01-25T12:17:19Z

Hope this helps you: https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Merge-commits-in-pull-requests @BT-fgarbely

lasley

Thanks @BT-fgarbely - few comments inline, but otherwise looks good.

Note on the squashing - please give it a shot first using the instructions in the wiki, because it is definitely a skill that is handy as a developer. If all else fails though, I will squash them for you before merge.

lasley · 2017-02-01T19:15:05Z

 ----------------
 addon | version | summary
 --- | --- | ---
+[auditlog](auditlog/) | 10.0.1.0.0 | Audit Log


Please revert this change - README.md is managed by a bot, so this change will create some conflicts.

lasley · 2017-02-01T19:15:36Z

+        'views/http_session_view.xml',
+        'views/http_request_view.xml',
    ],
+    'images': [],


Remove empty key

lasley · 2017-02-01T19:16:02Z

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
+<openerp>


<odoo noupdate="1"> & can remove the data tag

BT-fgarbely · 2017-02-03T16:05:02Z

Hello @lasley and @lreficent

Thanks for your hints.
I changed the code according to your review and I tried to squash the Transbot commits.
It did something, but I don't know if it worked as expected.

Please can you have a look again?

Thanks a lot.

lasley · 2017-02-03T17:33:07Z

Hey @BT-fgarbely - Hrmmm looks like you merged the squashed items instead of force pushing them in. We're trying to rewrite timeline, so we don't want the merge.

No matter though, I'll handle for you. I recommend playing around with this a bit though, you will find that things end up a lot more organized afterwards. It also has the added benefit of making you look like you write perfect code, because there are no commits indicating PEP fixes, PR reviews, or troubleshooting rabbit holes you ended in.

lasley · 2017-02-03T17:37:16Z

@BT-fgarbely - please check the box to allow maintainers to edit your branch so that I may assist - https://help.github.com/articles/allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork/

BT-fgarbely · 2017-02-06T06:52:22Z

Hello @lasley

I checked the "Allow edits from maintainers." checkbox.

Regards

lasley · 2017-02-10T01:37:49Z

Hrmmm I'm still getting a permissions error when pushing the squash. Not sure what's wrong if the Allow edits from maintainers is enabled 😕

BT-fgarbely · 2017-02-10T06:32:53Z

Hello @lasley

This is really strange.
The flag "Allow edits from maintainers." in this pull request is checked.

My fork is not created from the OCA repository. Our company has a fork from the OCA repository, and my fork comes from our company fork.
Maybe this could be a problem? I don't know. But in my understanding, this should be no problem.

Another question.
I saw that there is a pull request from @sebalix into my fork (BT-fgarbely#1). Should I merge this changes into my branch?

Regards,

sebalix · 2017-02-10T07:21:25Z

Hi,
I prefer to close the PR you mention, it was to port a fix from @StefanRijnhart but I also squash some commits, but I think I was doing wrong with this last point...

lasley · 2017-02-10T15:53:02Z

@BT-fgarbely Hrmm the check box is supposed to allow me to push to your fork, which is what I was trying. I'll give it another shot today, otherwise will give you some alternate instructions to just switch over to mine - there are many ways to skin a cat.

@sebalix Yeah the commit squashing will just add more commits into the mix here. What about the fix though, was it actually not valid?

sebalix · 2017-02-10T15:56:30Z

@lasley no it is still valid, but we can port it after this PR is merged, this is just a cherrypick. No need to add extra work on this one.

lasley · 2017-02-10T16:10:06Z

Alright sweet - I still can't push to the fork here though. I'm actually kind of curious why & think we may be hitting a bug with Github's new feature, so I contacted them.

Side note - we just started using this module in vertical-medical the other day & functional tests are also good 👍

lasley · 2017-02-16T01:46:28Z

Hah well a test edit went through, but force push still isn't working. I'm working with Github support though, seems we may have hit some sort of edge case that now intrigues the hell out of me.

Will provide update soon!

lasley · 2017-02-17T21:41:52Z

@BT-fgarbely Github engineering has confirmed that this is an issue with the fork from a fork. They're working on it, but that's obviously going to take a while.

We can do one of two things here. I can either supersede this PR with my branch, or you can just add the LasLabs fork as a remote then do the following:

git remote update
git checkout 10.0-mig-auditlog
git reset --hard 7b8bd4d
git push -f

BT-fgarbely · 2017-02-19T09:38:51Z

Hello @lasley

I added the LasLabs fork as remote and executed your suggested commands.

Regards

lasley

Thanks @BT-fgarbely

sebalix

Cool, thank you @BT-fgarbely and @lasley . Tested on runbot once again, 👍

lasley · 2017-02-19T15:46:14Z

Merging, this has been approved for long enough - we were just battling with git 😆

BT-fgarbely · 2017-02-20T06:33:47Z

Hello @lasley and @sebalix

Thanks a lot for your help and your support on this issue.

Regards

Syncing from upstream OCA/server-tools (13.0)

sebalix and others added 21 commits January 20, 2017 07:46

Module 'auditlog' - Log HTTP user sessions and requests

2abe8ae

Module 'auditlog' - Bump the version to 1.1.0

cd36194

Module 'auditlog' - Cleanup XML views (types removed)

9035a20

Module 'auditlog' - A log can be created with no current HTTP request…

d392c20

… (unit tests, ir.cron...)

Module 'auditlog' - 'display_name' fields added for the user session …

54edaaf

…and HTTP requests models

Module 'auditlog' - Fix pylint check

0e876f9

turn off prefetching when reding values

44089f9

auditlog - Ability to choose the log type on the rule: Full log (comp…

b57bbde

…lete but slow) and Fast log (data input only, faster)

auditlog - Field 'type' renamed to 'log_type'

a95baa2

auditlog - Bump version number

ffef454

auditlog - Auto-vacuum logs, HTTP requests and HTTP user sessions

f43da33

auditlog - Icon added + README updated (screenshots)

f3edd5c

singleton error if we saved the current session two times (brain-tec#473

a993256

) * [IMP] index the columns we'll be searching for for every request * [FIX] singleton error if we saved the current session two times

OCA Transbot updated translations from Transifex

379dfc7

Updated the __openerp__.xml to include the license and images fields

16d0183

These were updated to follow OCA conventions. - License set to AGPL-3 - Images set to empty array

auditlog module, Remove duplicate license key from openerp config

5e3d308

auditlog: Remove migration from audittrail functionality, this is not…

c570e70

… required for version 9

auditlog: Remove pre_init_hook reference from openerp, no pre_init ho…

6abb429

…ok exists any more

auditlog - Lint

ef22ab2

auditlog - Migrate 'AuditlogRule.create' and 'AuditlogRule.write' met…

2be8bdd

…hods to the new API

pedrobaeza mentioned this pull request Jan 20, 2017

Migration to version 10.0 #565

Closed

63 tasks

BT-fgarbely mentioned this pull request Jan 20, 2017

10.0 fgarbely migration auditlog #705

Closed

sebalix reviewed Jan 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

sebalix mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2017

[FIX] Request id no longer exists after concurrency rollback #701

Merged

lasley suggested changes Feb 1, 2017

View reviewed changes

oca-transbot and others added 2 commits February 3, 2017 09:35

OCA Transbot updated translations from Transifex

df93a96

[MIG] auditlog: Migrated to 10.0

7b8bd4d

lasley added this to the 10.0 milestone Feb 3, 2017

lasley added the needs fixing label Feb 3, 2017

BT-fgarbely force-pushed the 10.0-mig-auditlog branch from 3bc9b02 to 7b8bd4d Compare February 19, 2017 09:35

lasley approved these changes Feb 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

lasley added needs review and removed needs fixing labels Feb 19, 2017

sebalix approved these changes Feb 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

lasley merged commit c111073 into OCA:10.0 Feb 19, 2017

SiesslPhillip pushed a commit to grueneerde/OCA-server-tools that referenced this pull request Nov 20, 2024

Merge pull request OCA#707 from OCA/13.0

bf26e2b

Syncing from upstream OCA/server-tools (13.0)

		@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
		<openerp>

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

BT-fgarbely commented Jan 20, 2017

Uh oh!

sebalix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BT-fgarbely commented Jan 25, 2017

Uh oh!

LoisRForgeFlow commented Jan 25, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lasley Feb 1, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lasley Feb 1, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lasley Feb 1, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BT-fgarbely commented Feb 3, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley commented Feb 3, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley commented Feb 3, 2017

Uh oh!

BT-fgarbely commented Feb 6, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley commented Feb 10, 2017

Uh oh!

BT-fgarbely commented Feb 10, 2017

Uh oh!

sebalix commented Feb 10, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley commented Feb 10, 2017

Uh oh!

sebalix commented Feb 10, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley commented Feb 10, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley commented Feb 16, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley commented Feb 17, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

BT-fgarbely commented Feb 19, 2017

Uh oh!

lasley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sebalix left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lasley commented Feb 19, 2017

Uh oh!

BT-fgarbely commented Feb 20, 2017

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

lasley commented Feb 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading