nexedi / erp5

I would be in favour of dropping my_list_mode (so moving it to legacy bt) and keeping only my_view_mode_module_listbox.

Having different technical_context_name is useful when we have really specific context. I think "dialog_mode" is useful because we use fields like "my_dialog_mode_format" which is usually only useful for dialogs. But for "list_mode", it can be seen just a view_mode for modules.

What needs attention is the usage of fields used to render listbox columns. It can be the same thing for a module or a document. For exemple this field (erp5_trade is one of the rare bt that was fully reviewed) :

https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/blob/master/bt5/erp5_trade/SkinTemplateItem/portal_skins/erp5_trade/InternalPackingListModule_viewInternalPackingListList/listbox_delivery_start_date.xml

It is a proxy to my_view_mode_listbox_read_only_start_date. For erp5_trade, list_mode was not used at all, this show that we can do without it.

So what do you think about removing "list_mode" in https://www.erp5.com/erp5-HowTo.Configure.Proxy.Field/erp5-Guideline.Form.Profixification/#the-semantic-field-name-needs-to-be-associated-with-the-technical-context ?

But list_mode exists for documents too, which is different from view_mode: it is what is used to display subdocument listboxes as full-page lists, allowing copy/paste/delete/... . So naming list_mode a "view_mode for module" is inconsistent. This is why we use list_mode on modules and not view_mode.