WIP: ERP5 Property Annotate and History using DiffTool
Being able to show history for properties as well as annotate(similar to git blame) for the text contents in ERP5 objects.
- Property name not displayed properly for Property History View in new UI and after pagination move in old UI.
- Remove redundancy for base_data and data.
categoriesproperty as they are not stored in expected way in Historical Revisions.
- Gadget for links in History Tab for new UI (or maybe make them an action).
The initial diff for a not None property should always be
Base_addDialogwhere the old status is empty.
- Add link to show complete change for a History View on Property History Listbox items.
- Not showing the empty properties creates the problem for the case when properties were not None in the past.
- Some properties from propertyItems are available as categories getter in the Historical Dict, so these are also not available.
64 64 <td>A new foo</td> 65 65 </tr> 66 66 67 <tr> 68 <td>waitForElementPresent</td> 69 <td>//textarea[@name='field_my_lines_list']</td>
lines with s ? it looks like a field not following naming convention.
I think this is because the fields is named
LinesField(it's formulator naming) and these tests are tests for this field so they match the name.
Also, I believe the field from field library are "technical template fields" so they are named like the fields .
For ERP5 properties and fields we usually never use s, but use
_setdepending on the type.
If this fiels is to display a list of "things",
my_thing_listis the preferred naming.
Ah I see. Makes sense. The lines I added in the test also is for lines field(the field was already existing, I just added to check if the element is present), so I think there is no need to change the name as long as they are based on
Or do we prefer to change all of them in the tests to
my_line_list? (seems like there are just 24, so I am ok with pushing a predecessor commit to master changing their names).
Ah I get it now. This test is modifying a
Fooand it's the default testing form named like this... sorry for noise it's perfectly fine in this context.
I just saw this field in the diff and it looked suspicious.
A minot suggestion: If it's blame as it git blame, can we use something less negative than blame ? for example git blame can also be used as "git annotate".
If it's blame as it git blame, can we use something less negative than blame ? for example git blame can also be used as "git annotate".
Yeah, its similar as
Annonateseems like a better name. I'll use it. Thanks
Changed title: WIP: ERP5 Property Blame and History using DiffTool → WIP: ERP5 Property Annotate and History using DiffToolToggle commit list
added 88 commits
Toggle commit list
92e906d6...99e67338 - 85 commits from branch
- 2471a65d - [erp5_core] Revert view for Historical Comparison.
- 94349f9d - [erp5_core] Use DiffTool to display historical revision diff
- 95352144 - [erp5_core] Add ERP5 Property History
- 92e906d6...99e67338 - 85 commits from branch