Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:28:38 +0100 3.6 api update stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:28:38 +0100] rev 4633
3.6 api update
Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:58:52 +0100 fix unittest_hooks: attributes have now update_permission instead of [add/delete]_permission stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:58:52 +0100] rev 4632
fix unittest_hooks: attributes have now update_permission instead of [add/delete]_permission
Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:57:57 +0100 when modifying a persistent schema, erschema may miss some permissions which wil trigger a key error, but we don't want to crash on such cases stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:57:57 +0100] rev 4631
when modifying a persistent schema, erschema may miss some permissions which wil trigger a key error, but we don't want to crash on such cases
Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:52:34 +0100 fix #694445: related entity generates weird RQL which in turn generates weird SQL which fails on SQL Server stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:52:34 +0100] rev 4630
fix #694445: related entity generates weird RQL which in turn generates weird SQL which fails on SQL Server quick fix to reuse modification_date if already retreived by the rql query.
Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:13:36 +0100 fix 4626:c26b4df9fc90 (#703911): use can't rely on peid since it's not an actual eid when we're creating the parent entity stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:13:36 +0100] rev 4629
fix 4626:c26b4df9fc90 (#703911): use can't rely on peid since it's not an actual eid when we're creating the parent entity
Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:08:00 +0100 [form fields] nicer behaviour of the password field: don't put internal field value on edition (triggering validation error if one validation without removing the value, due to confirmation mismatch), and don't show the field as required in such case stable
Sylvain Thénault <sylvain.thenault@logilab.fr> [Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:08:00 +0100] rev 4628
[form fields] nicer behaviour of the password field: don't put internal field value on edition (triggering validation error if one validation without removing the value, due to confirmation mismatch), and don't show the field as required in such case
(0) -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -6 +6 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 tip