odoo
/
odoo
2
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests Releases Activity

[IMP] share: update local rule creation to take advantage of new ir.rule combinations 

In v6.0, local rules in the same group were AND'ed, so
we had to compute rule combinations. Now we can simply
add a new rule, and it will be automatically OR'ed.

bzr revid: odo@openerp.com-20110601131146-7pek6a7grxiij03r
This commit is contained in:
Olivier Dony 2011-06-01 15:11:46 +02:00
parent e9ef1c6ab6
commit fe4680f6e9
1 changed files with 16 additions and 29 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

45
addons/share/wizard/share_wizard.py
View File

@ -385,39 +385,26 @@ class share_create(osv.osv_memory):
def _create_or_combine_sharing_rule(self, cr, current_user, wizard_data, group_id, model_id, domain, rule_name=None, context=None):
rule_obj = self.pool.get('ir.rule')
if rule_name is None:
rule_name = _('Sharing filter created by user %s (%s) for group %s') % \
(current_user.name, current_user.login, group_id)
# if the target group already has one or more rules for the given model,
# we should instead add the new domain to each rule with OR operator to
# achieve the desired effect, otherwise they would be AND'ed as happens
# for any pair of rules on the same group for the same model.
# Indeed, A v (B /\ C) == (A v B) /\ (A v C)
rule_ids = rule_obj.search(cr, UID_ROOT, [('groups', 'in', group_id), ('model_id', '=', model_id)])
if rule_ids:
for rule in rule_obj.browse(cr, UID_ROOT, rule_ids, context=context):
if rule.domain_force == domain:
# skip identical ones!
continue
# sanity check: the rule we are about to modify must not be used by another group
self._assert(len(rule.groups) == 1,
_('Sorry, the selected group(s) currently have security rules in conflict with '\
'the access point you are adding, and these rules cannot be altered because they are used '\
'by other groups as well. Please correct it and make sure each group does not share any '\
'security rule with other groups (global rules are fine).'), context=context)
# combine both domains with 'OR'
combined_domain = rule_obj.domain_disjunction(cr, UID_ROOT, rule.domain_force, domain)
rule.write({'domain_force': combined_domain}, context=context)
self.__logger.debug("Combined new sharing rule on model %s with domain: %s with existing one(s): %r", model_id, domain, combined_domain)
else:
rule_obj.create(cr, UID_ROOT, {
'name': rule_name,
'model_id': model_id,
'domain_force': domain,
'groups': [(4,group_id)]
})
self.__logger.debug("Created sharing rule on model %s with domain: %s", model_id, domain)
# don't create it twice!
self.__logger.debug("Ignoring sharing rule on model %s with domain: %s because the same rule exists already", model_id, domain)
return
if rule_name is None:
rule_name = _('Sharing filter created by user %s (%s) for group %s') % \
(current_user.name, current_user.login, group_id)
# Adding the new rule in the group is fine in all cases, because rules
# in the same group and for the same model will be combined with OR
# (as of v6.1), so the desired effect is achieved.
rule_obj.create(cr, UID_ROOT, {
'name': rule_name,
'model_id': model_id,
'domain_force': domain,
'groups': [(4,group_id)]
})
self.__logger.debug("Created sharing rule on model %s with domain: %s", model_id, domain)
def _create_indirect_sharing_rules(self, cr, current_user, wizard_data, group_id, fields_relations, context=None):
rule_obj = self.pool.get('ir.rule')