[16.0][IMP] mrp_sale_info: add optional attribute for the new fields in the…

[MarinaAForgeFlow]

… workorder tree

[marcos-mendez]

Automated Review -- Tests Failed

1. Root Cause

The test failure is due to a database connection error (Connection to the database failed) during the Odoo server startup, not directly related to the XML view changes in mrp_workorder.xml. This suggests an infrastructure or environment issue in the test runner (likely Runbot), not a bug in the code itself.

2. Suggested Fix

No functional fix is needed for the code change. The modification to the optional attribute on fields (sale_id, partner_id, commitment_date, client_order_ref) in mrp_workorder.xml is valid and follows Odoo view conventions. However, ensure that:

• The module mrp_sale_info is properly installed and all dependencies are met.
• The test environment has correct database access and permissions.

3. Additional Code Issues

None found. The change is a view enhancement using standard Odoo optional field behavior (optional="show" / optional="hide"). It does not introduce any logic or functional bugs.

4. Test Improvements

To better test this change, consider adding or enhancing tests in a TransactionCase or SavepointCase:

Suggested Test Cases:

• Test visibility of fields in workorder view: Create a workorder and verify that sale_id and partner_id are visible by default, while commitment_date and client_order_ref are hidden unless manually shown.
• Test field rendering in different contexts: Ensure the optional behavior works correctly in both list and form views if applicable.
• Test with and without sale order linkage: Verify that fields like sale_id and partner_id are correctly populated when the workorder is linked to a sale order.

OCA Testing Pattern:

Use SavepointCase for tests involving view rendering and field visibility, as it isolates database changes and allows for more reliable testing of UI behavior.

Example test snippet:

def test_workorder_view_fields_visibility(self):
    sale_order = self.env['sale.order'].create({...})
    workorder = self.env['mrp.workorder'].create({
        'name': 'Test Workorder',
        'production_id': sale_order.production_ids[0].id,
    })
    view = self.env['ir.ui.view'].search([
        ('model', '=', 'mrp.workorder'),
        ('name', '=', 'mrp.workorder.form.inherit.sale.info')
    ])
    self.assertTrue(view)

This ensures that the optional field behavior is tested in a real Odoo environment.

---

⏰ This PR has been open for 66 days.
🔍 No human reviews yet after 66 days. PSC members: a quick review would help keep this contributor engaged with OCA.
💤 Last activity was 66 days ago.

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