[19.0][IMP] base_tier_validation: late / pending / future systray buckets by bosd · Pull Request #41 · OCA/tier-validation

bosd · 2026-05-14T15:21:24Z

Summary

Mirror Odoo's activity systray layout in the tier-review dropdown so reviewers see three buckets per model instead of just one "Pending" column.

Bucket	Meaning	Visibility
Late	pending reviews older than `base_tier_validation.late_after_days` (default `7`)	always rendered; muted when 0
Pending	pending reviews within the threshold	always rendered
Future	waiting reviews queued behind sequenced tiers, current user is the reviewer	rendered only when count > 0

The headline systray badge now reflects late + pending (work the reviewer must act on now). Future is a heads-up only and is intentionally excluded from the badge so it doesn't inflate urgency.

How it ties to the activity systray pattern

Reference (Odoo's standard activity menu):

Journal Entry / 0 Late / 1 Today / 3 Future

Before this pr:

This PR produces:

Journal Entry / 0 Late / 1 Pending / 3 Future

Tier reviews don't have an explicit due date, so "Today" becomes "Pending (within threshold)" — every other column maps cleanly.

Click-through

Each bucket's record IDs are computed server-side in review_user_count and shipped to the OWL component. Clicking opens an act_window with domain = [("id", "in", <bucket_ids>)] — labels the breadcrumb with the bucket name so the user knows which slice they're looking at.

Configuration

System parameter base_tier_validation.late_after_days controls the late threshold globally. Default 7. Set per-installation via Settings → Technical → Parameters → System Parameters.

Chose a system parameter over per-definition (tier.definition.notify_reminder_delay) because:

one knob, no opt-in per definition required for out-of-box value
reviewer reminder cadence is an org-wide concern, not a workflow-specific one
easy to switch to a per-definition override later without breaking the contract

Test plan

New test test_systray_counter_late_pending_future_buckets:

Creates two sequenced tier definitions (tier 1 and tier 2 both pointing at user 1) → user 1 ends up with one pending + one waiting (future) review on the same record.
Verifies late_count=0, pending_count=1, future_count=1 at "now".
freeze_time-s forward past the 7-day threshold → verifies the count shifts to late_count=1, pending_count=0, future_count=1.
Asserts the per-bucket record id lists also reflect the right state.

Existing test_10_systray_counter keeps passing — the pending_count key is preserved with the same semantics for fresh reviews.

Companion PRs

This builds on #23 (icon refresh)

OCA-git-bot · 2026-05-14T15:21:29Z

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

bofiltd · 2026-07-23T06:57:26Z

The new added parameter, should be mentioned in fhe documentation.

Dranyel-Bosd

LGTM 👍

bofiltd

Thanks

OCA-git-bot · 2026-09-04T12:00:02Z

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). 🤖

…iews" link Implement res.users.tier_review_dashboard_action so the reviewer systray can link to the All Reviews board. Returns False for users outside group_show_tier_review_board, so the link is only offered to users who can open the board. The hook is introduced in base_tier_validation by OCA#41 (systray buckets). Until that lands nothing calls this method, so the module works standalone either way.

Pani-k-folk · 2026-10-14T07:01:00Z

@bosd, while testing locally (Sales Orders; the Reviews menu is shared, so other document types should behave the same) I found two issues:

1. An invalid late_after_days breaks the systray

The value goes straight into int(), so abc, 7.5 or an empty value raises ValueError on every refresh.

try:
    late_after_days = max(0, int(param))
except (TypeError, ValueError):
    late_after_days = DEFAULT_LATE_AFTER_DAYS

2. Clicking the document type does nothing when all reviews are Late

With a menu showing Sales Order - 1 Late · 0 Pending, clicking "Sales Order" just closes the menu. Only the "1 Late" link works. The row click should open Late + Pending.

Questions
Q1. With only Future reviews, the menu shows "No reviews to do." right above "Sales Order - 1 Future". Intended?

Q2. If I approve the same document at two levels, it shows as "1 Pending · 1 Future", which reads like two documents. The test asserts this, so is it intended? Or should a document that is already Pending be left out of Future?

bosd · 2026-10-14T10:16:40Z

Thanks @Pani-k-folk, great testing.

Good catch, I'll take your snippet and fall back to the default on a bad value.
Agreed, the row click was tied to the Pending bucket only. It will open Late + Pending now, and Future when there is nothing to act on yet.

Q1. Not intended. The empty message looked at the badge counter, which leaves Future out on purpose. I'll show it only when there are no reviews at all.

Q2. Fair point, the counts are per document so this reads wrong. I'll leave a document out of Future when it is already Late or Pending, and adjust the test.

I'll push the fixes shortly.

Mirror Odoo's activity systray layout in the tier-review dropdown so reviewers can see -- and click into -- three buckets per model instead of just one "Pending" column. - ``Late`` (red, hidden when 0 only via greyed style): pending reviews older than ``base_tier_validation.late_after_days`` system parameter (default 7). The reviewer should prioritise these to avoid blocking downstream work. - ``Pending``: pending reviews within the threshold. Standard "act today" work; what the systray showed before. - ``Future`` (only rendered when count > 0): waiting reviews where the current user is assigned as reviewer but the sequence has not yet promoted the review to pending. "What is incoming for me". The headline systray badge now reflects late + pending (the work the reviewer must act on now); future is a heads-up and is intentionally excluded so it doesn't inflate the urgency badge. Backend: ``res.users.review_user_count`` returns per-model dicts with ``late_count`` / ``pending_count`` / ``future_count`` plus the matching record id lists, so clicking a bucket in the systray opens exactly those records via a server-supplied ``[("id", "in", ids)]`` domain rather than re-running the lookup client-side. Frontend: the OWL ``tier_review_menu`` template renders the three columns in the order Late | Pending | Future. Clicking each calls ``openReviewGroup(group, bucket)`` which composes the action's domain off the bucket-specific id list and labels the breadcrumb accordingly. Test exercises both the "fresh" and "older than threshold" cases by ``freeze_time``-ing forward past the late cutoff and asserting the counts shift from ``pending_count`` into ``late_count`` while the sequenced waiting review stays in ``future_count``.

…n the systray Mirror Odoo's activity systray pattern where the dropdown ends with a "View all activities" link to the global activity dashboard. The tier-review dropdown gets the same footer when a downstream module exposes a global review dashboard. The hook is a new ``tier_review_dashboard_action`` method on ``res.users`` that returns ``False`` by default and can be overridden by a module shipping a dashboard (e.g. ``base_tier_validation_board``) to return a serialised ``ir.actions.act_window`` dict. The systray fetches the action alongside the bucket counts in parallel and renders the link conditionally on the response. No additional RPC round-trip cost beyond the single ``Promise.all``. When no dashboard is exposed (default install, no board module), the link is simply not rendered -- the dropdown behaves exactly as before.

The systray late/pending/future buckets are driven by the base_tier_validation.late_after_days system parameter (default 7), but it was not mentioned in the readme. Document it under CONFIGURE so integrators know how to tune the Late threshold.

- fall back to the default on an invalid late_after_days - clicking the document type opens Late + Pending, or Future when there is nothing to act on yet - only show "No reviews to do." when there are no reviews at all - leave a document out of Future when it is already Late or Pending

Pani-k-folk

Thanks @bosd, re-tested LGTM 👍

OCA-git-bot added mod:base_tier_validation Module base_tier_validation series:19.0 labels May 14, 2026

bosd force-pushed the 19.0-imp-base_tier_validation-systray-buckets branch 2 times, most recently from 4e002c7 to 18a1899 Compare May 14, 2026 15:34

bosd force-pushed the 19.0-imp-base_tier_validation-systray-buckets branch from 18a1899 to 859ea6c Compare June 5, 2026 21:04

Dranyel-Bosd approved these changes Jul 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

bofiltd approved these changes Sep 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

OCA-git-bot added approved ready to merge labels Sep 4, 2026

This was referenced Sep 30, 2026

[19.0][MIG] base_tier_validation_board: Migration to 19.0 #40

Open

[19.0][IMP] base_tier_validation: rewrite the documentation #86

Open

cpemiguelhendrickfmallari-lgtm mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2026

[19.0][IMP] base_tier_validation: UI clean-up #23

Open

bosd force-pushed the 19.0-imp-base_tier_validation-systray-buckets branch from d1a37fa to d3965e5 Compare October 7, 2026 07:55

bosd mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2026

19.0: open PRs to get in before the 20.0 migration #96

Open

bosd and others added 4 commits October 14, 2026 12:17

bosd force-pushed the 19.0-imp-base_tier_validation-systray-buckets branch from d3965e5 to 5c1a8a2 Compare October 14, 2026 10:32

Pani-k-folk approved these changes Oct 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

[19.0][IMP] base_tier_validation: late / pending / future systray buckets - #41

[19.0][IMP] base_tier_validation: late / pending / future systray buckets#41
bosd wants to merge 4 commits into
OCA:19.0from
bosd:19.0-imp-base_tier_validation-systray-buckets

bosd commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

bofiltd commented Jul 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Dranyel-Bosd left a comment

Uh oh!

bofiltd left a comment

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented Sep 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Pani-k-folk commented Oct 14, 2026

Uh oh!

bosd commented Oct 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Pani-k-folk left a comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Conversation

bosd commented May 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

How it ties to the activity systray pattern

Click-through

Configuration

Test plan

Companion PRs

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

bofiltd commented Jul 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Dranyel-Bosd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bofiltd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented Sep 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Pani-k-folk commented Oct 14, 2026

Uh oh!

bosd commented Oct 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Pani-k-folk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

bosd commented May 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading