Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:04:24 +0100 [workflow] finish refactoring introduced by 021035b9a7ab for 'go back' transition: stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:04:24 +0100] rev 4646
[workflow] finish refactoring introduced by 021035b9a7ab for 'go back' transition: * fix SubWorkflowTransition.destination() prototype (must now take an entity as argument) * fix the change state for to give the entity to the transition's destination() method * we need a new method to draw workflow since we've no entity to give and 'go back' transition usually go back to multiple states
Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:37:03 +0100 deprecate Transition.set_transition_permissions in favor of set_permissions (after all we know we're on a transition entity) stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:37:03 +0100] rev 4645
deprecate Transition.set_transition_permissions in favor of set_permissions (after all we know we're on a transition entity)
Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:36:26 +0100 introduce 'go back' transition: transition without destination state will go to the state we were coming from stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:36:26 +0100] rev 4644
introduce 'go back' transition: transition without destination state will go to the state we were coming from
Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:34:14 +0100 fix optimisation with super session that may lead to integrity loss stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:34:14 +0100] rev 4643
fix optimisation with super session that may lead to integrity loss at some point I've decided to stop ensuring ?1 cardinality was respected when adding a new relation using a super session, to avoid the cost of the delete query. That was yet discussable because it introduced unexpected difference between execute and unsafe_execute, which is imo not worth it. Also, now that rql() in migration script default to unsafe_execute, we definitly don't want that implicit behaviour change (which already cause bug when for instance adding another default workflow for an entity type: without that fix we end up with *two* default workflows while the schema tells we can have only one. IMO we should go to the direction that super session skip all security check, but nothing else, unless explicitly asked.
(0) -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -4 +4 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 tip