Skip to content

Conversation

@StefanRijnhart
Copy link
Member

@StefanRijnhart StefanRijnhart commented Oct 6, 2022

Continued from #3582, after rebuilding the 16.0 branch without docs, openupgrade_framework and the scripts from openupgrade_scripts.

Added some documentation to https://github.com/OCA/OpenUpgrade/wiki/Set-up-the-branch-for-a-new-Odoo-release.

Also slightly updated:

@StefanRijnhart StefanRijnhart changed the title [MIG] Bootstrapping 16.0 + analysis [WIP] [MIG] Bootstrapping 16.0 + analysis Oct 6, 2022
@StefanRijnhart StefanRijnhart marked this pull request as draft October 6, 2022 10:29
@StefanRijnhart StefanRijnhart marked this pull request as ready for review October 6, 2022 10:46
@StefanRijnhart
Copy link
Member Author

StefanRijnhart commented Oct 6, 2022

@pedrobaeza thanks for challenging the branch setup. Nothing that could not be fixed with a

git format-patch --keep-subject --stdout origin/16.0..origin/15.0 -- \
    ':!docs' ':!openupgrade_scripts/scripts' \
    ':!openupgrade_framework' \
    ':!docsource/modules140-150.rst' \
    ':!openupgrade_scripts/apriori.py' \
| git am -3 --

And look at that clean history: https://github.com/OCA/Openupgrade/commits/16.0

@StefanRijnhart StefanRijnhart changed the title [WIP] [MIG] Bootstrapping 16.0 + analysis [MIG] Bootstrapping 16.0 + analysis Oct 6, 2022
@StefanRijnhart
Copy link
Member Author

StefanRijnhart commented Oct 6, 2022

The test CI job fails without openupgrade_framework, or any scripts for that matter. fixed by not running the test migration if no modules are ready yet.

@StefanRijnhart StefanRijnhart force-pushed the mig/16.0/infra branch 3 times, most recently from 13efb88 to 1e3255b Compare October 11, 2022 09:31
@legalsylvain legalsylvain added this to the 16.0 milestone Oct 11, 2022
}

# only used here for upgrade_analysis
renamed_models = {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The analysis has to be re-run if renamed models are found. Do you know if there's any right now?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, not aware of any.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The re-run will have to be done few months later, anyway.

.. |badge3| image:: https://img.shields.io/badge/github-OCA%2FOpenUpgrade-lightgray.png?logo=github
:target: https://github.com/OCA/OpenUpgrade/tree/16.0/openupgrade_scripts
:alt: OCA/OpenUpgrade
.. |badge3| image:: https://img.shields.io/badge/github-OCA%2Fopenupgrade-lightgray.png?logo=github
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why changing uppercase?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I did not pay any attention to the casing when I ran oca-gen-addon-readme. I didn't know it mattered, and I'm still slightly annoyed the project name has to be passed on the command line 😛

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's for reducing the diff essentially, and yes, you need to introduce it, as it can't be deduced from the folder itself.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couldn't we introduce a .oca-project-name file in the root of the addons directory?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a good idea, but it should be proposed at maintainer-tools, and maybe harmonize it with ocaport hidden directory (not sure if it's .oca), and also bootstrap it through the copier template.

Copy link

@Feyensv Feyensv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Only curiously looking at the analysis of the modules in my team's scope :3
Giving some information on the way to help the upgrades ;).

(really nice work to detect all those changes automatically, it's a great tool 👍)

Comment on lines +2 to +6
obsolete model payment.acquirer
obsolete model payment.acquirer.onboarding.wizard [transient]
model payment.refund.wizard (moved to account_payment) [transient]
new model payment.provider
new model payment.provider.onboarding.wizard [transient]
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FYI those two changes are model rename (acquirer -> provider)
will probably simplify the upgrade analysis ;)

(Applies to view & other records xml ids as well, in payment(_*) modules, we replaced all occurrences of acquirer)

Comment on lines +4 to +5
obsolete model sale.payment.acquirer.onboarding.wizard [transient]
new model sale.payment.provider.onboarding.wizard [transient]
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

model renaming

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

Thank you for taking a look, Victor!

@StefanRijnhart it seems we have our first renamed models to include and re-run analysis.

@jcdrubay
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

Is there anything blocking that PR?
Wouldn't it be possible to merge and later on improve after re-running analysis and have a more iterative approach?

I have updated https://oca-cm-15.komit.link to take into account v16.0 and currently it does not reflect the real situation without this PR being merged.

@StefanRijnhart
Copy link
Member Author

Please merge this and someone can follow up with a new analysis. My computer is still smoking from all the analysis runs I did for this PR.

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

OK, merging blindly

@pedrobaeza pedrobaeza merged commit 4263532 into OCA:16.0 Oct 26, 2022
@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

The model renamings mentioned by Victor are still pending.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants