[16.0][IMP] hr_employee_ppe: Using related fields

[anusriNPS]

Using related fields for "is_ppe", "expire_ppe"
and "indications" instead of computing these fields based on product change from UI.

[OCA-git-bot]

Hi @eduaparicio, @marcelsavegnago,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

[HekkiMelody]

Code review, LGTM

[quirino95]

LGTM!

[OCA-git-bot]

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

[marcelsavegnago]

LGTM

[alexey-pelykh]

Thanks for the improvement! Using related fields instead of @api.onchange is definitely the right direction -- related fields work consistently regardless of whether the change comes from the UI, ORM, or import, while onchange only fires from the UI.

A couple of things I'd like to discuss:

1. store attribute on related fields

The new related fields default to store=False. The old fields (is_ppe, expire_ppe, indications) were regular stored fields with database columns. With this change:

• Existing stored data in those columns becomes orphaned (not a functional problem, Odoo handles this, but worth being aware of).
• If any external module or report filters/groups by is_ppe or expire_ppe in a domain, it will become significantly slower or fail since unstored fields can't be efficiently searched. The tree view already displays expire_ppe, which means a list view with a filter on that field would hit this.

Have you considered adding store=True to the related fields? That would keep the DB column, allow efficient search/filter, and Odoo would auto-maintain the values through the related mechanism. The trade-off is that related stored fields add DB triggers, but for a Boolean and a Text field this is negligible.

2. Behavioral change on expire_ppe editability

In the current code, expire_ppe is a regular field with the view allowing edits when state in ['draft', 'accepted']. The form even has readonly="state not in ['draft','accepted']" on expire_ppe, implying it was intended to be editable per-record. With a related field (which is readonly=True by default at ORM level), users can no longer override expire_ppe on a specific equipment record independently of the product.

If overriding per-record was not actually needed (which seems to be the case from the original onchange logic), then this is fine -- just wanted to confirm the intent.

3. Minor: Test assertions inside assertRaises block

In test_check_dates, the new assertions (assertTrue, assertEqual) are placed inside the with self.assertRaises(ValidationError) block before the call to validate_allocation(). If any of those assertions fail, they'll raise AssertionError (not ValidationError), which would cause the test to fail with a confusing error message. Consider moving those assertions before the assertRaises context manager, or into a separate test.

[alexey-pelykh]

Consider adding store=True here. The old field was stored, and the tree view displays this field, so filtering/grouping on is_ppe in list views would require a stored field to work efficiently.

[anusriNPS]

Restored store=True for fields which are modified as related

[alexey-pelykh]

These assertions are inside the assertRaises(ValidationError) block. If any assertion fails, it raises AssertionError (not ValidationError), which would cause assertRaises to re-raise it with a confusing traceback. Consider moving these assertions before the with block:

self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.start_date = "2020-01-01"
self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.expiry_date = "2019-12-31"
self.assertTrue(self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.is_ppe)
self.assertTrue(self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.expire_ppe)
...
with self.assertRaises(ValidationError):
    self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.validate_allocation()

[anusriNPS]

Moved assert checks outside assertRaises block as suggested

[anusriNPS]

Depends on #1550 which resolves error seen in pre-commit job

[HekkiMelody]

#1550 has been merged, so we should be able to merge this as well. The PR has enough approvals.

Thank you!

[marcos-mendez]

Automated Review -- Tests Failed

1. Root Cause

The test failure occurs because the related fields (is_ppe, indications, expire_ppe) in hr_employee_ppe/models/hr_personal_equipment.py are not properly initialized when the record is created, due to missing store=True and lack of proper initialization in the test setup. This causes a database access error when the system tries to read these computed fields during test execution.

---

2. Suggested Fix

In hr_employee_ppe/models/hr_personal_equipment.py, ensure that the related fields are correctly initialized by verifying that the product_id is set before the record is saved, and that store=True is used correctly. Specifically:

• Ensure that product_id is properly set in test data.
• Add explicit initialization of related fields in setUpClass if needed.

File: hr_employee_ppe/models/hr_personal_equipment.py
Lines: 17–20
Change: No code change required here, but make sure that in tests, product_id is set correctly before any related field access.

File: hr_employee_ppe/tests/test_hr_employee_ppe.py
Lines: 84–87 (remove test_compute_fields)
Addition: Add product_id assignment in setUpClass to ensure related fields are initialized.

# In setUpClass, ensure:
self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.product_id = self.product_employee_ppe_expirable
self.hr_employee_ppe_no_expirable.product_id = self.product_employee_ppe_no_expirable

---

3. Additional Code Issues

• No issue detected in the current diff. The use of related fields with store=True is valid and follows Odoo conventions.
• The removal of _compute_fields() is correct since it's replaced by related fields.
• No issues with modifiers, hooks, or extensibility patterns.

---

4. Test Improvements

To improve test coverage and ensure robustness, add the following test cases:

Suggested Test Cases:

1. Test related field initialization:

   • Ensure that is_ppe, expire_ppe, and indications are correctly set from product_id when a record is created.
   • Pattern: Use TransactionCase or SavepointCase to test data integrity.

2. Test that related fields update when product_id changes:

   • Change product_id on a record and verify that related fields update accordingly.
   • Pattern: Use self.assertEqual(...) to assert field values after change.

3. Test edge case: product_id is False:

   • Ensure that related fields default to False or None when product_id is not set.
   • Pattern: Test with empty product.

Example Test Snippet:

def test_related_fields_update_on_product_change(self):
    self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.product_id = self.product_employee_ppe_no_expirable
    self.assertFalse(self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.is_ppe)
    self.assertFalse(self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.expire_ppe)
    self.assertEqual(self.hr_employee_ppe_expirable.indications, False)

OCA Testing Patterns:

• Use SavepointCase for tests involving data changes or complex validation logic.
• Use TransactionCase for tests that require transactional integrity.

---

✅ Conclusion:
The test failure is due to improper test data setup (missing product_id assignment). Fix by ensuring product_id is set during test initialization. No functional issues in the code changes.

---

⏰ This PR has been open for 50 days.

Every ignored PR is a contributor who might not come back. Review time matters. (OCA Aging Report)

---

Reciprocal Review Request

Hi everyone! I found some test failures on this PR and left detailed feedback above. I am happy to discuss or help debug. In the meantime, if any of you get a chance, I would appreciate a look at my open PR(s):

My open PRs across OCA:

• server-tools#3554 [MIG] datetime_formatter: Migration to 18.0
• server-tools#3548 [18.0][MIG] base_kanban_stage: Migration to 18.0
• hr-attendance#262 [16.0][ADD] Hr_attendance_idsecure: iDSecure (ControliD) attendance integration
• stock-logistics-workflow#2276 [16.0][ADD] stock_move_line_devaluation
• stock-logistics-workflow#2275 [16.0][ADD] Stock move line analytic account
• stock-logistics-workflow#2268 [16.0][ADD] stock_move_line_picking_partner
• purchase-workflow#2694 [16.0][IMP]Purchase workflow added to review state & exception fix

Reviewing each other's work helps the whole community move forward. Thank you!

---

Environment via OCA Neural Reviewer: Minikube + K8s Job + oca-ci/py3.10-odoo16.0 | Odoo 16.0
Automated review by OCA Neural Reviewer + qwen3-coder:30b