- Mailing Lists
- Contributors
- Re: Robust renaming in code
Archives
- By thread 1419
-
By date
- August 2019 59
- September 2019 118
- October 2019 165
- November 2019 97
- December 2019 35
- January 2020 58
- February 2020 204
- March 2020 121
- April 2020 172
- May 2020 50
- June 2020 158
- July 2020 85
- August 2020 94
- September 2020 193
- October 2020 277
- November 2020 100
- December 2020 159
- January 2021 38
- February 2021 87
- March 2021 146
- April 2021 73
- May 2021 90
- June 2021 86
- July 2021 123
- August 2021 50
- September 2021 68
- October 2021 66
- November 2021 74
- December 2021 75
- January 2022 98
- February 2022 77
- March 2022 68
- April 2022 31
- May 2022 59
- June 2022 87
- July 2022 141
- August 2022 38
- September 2022 73
- October 2022 152
- November 2022 39
- December 2022 50
- January 2023 93
- February 2023 49
- March 2023 106
- April 2023 47
- May 2023 69
- June 2023 92
- July 2023 64
- August 2023 103
- September 2023 91
- October 2023 101
- November 2023 94
- December 2023 46
- January 2024 75
- February 2024 79
- March 2024 104
- April 2024 63
- May 2024 40
- June 2024 160
- July 2024 80
- August 2024 70
- September 2024 62
- October 2024 121
- November 2024 117
- December 2024 89
- January 2025 59
- February 2025 104
- March 2025 96
- April 2025 107
- May 2025 52
- June 2025 72
- July 2025 60
- August 2025 81
- September 2025 124
- October 2025 63
- November 2025 22
Contributors
Re: Robust renaming in code
Thanks, the i18n_extra folder was the thing I didn’t knew off.
Am 31.08.20 um 11:41 schrieb Pedro M. Baeza (Tecnativa):
> I "forbid" (not real forbidding, but persuasion) to do this in my customers, as the maintenance cost for such a whim doesn't worth it IMO. They adapt to current nomenclature easily when you involve serious (but real) costs about that.
… I know, but … well … you know ;-)
by Pete Hahn - 12:16 - 31 Aug 2020
Reference
-
Robust renaming in code
Hi, I have a question that frequently arrises due to customer requests and I never found a really nice solution for, despite this seams to be so obvious need for customization. How do I rename stuff (e.g. Entry from ir.ui.menu) defined in other modules from within my customized module. I know the various places in the UI, but I’m looking for a robust way to define this in code. It tried to just rename the entry in XML like so: ``` Verkaufsprojekte ``` This is working, but the result doesn’t show up, because in the german translation the original translated term is still used. The changed value however doesn't appear in my modules .pot files on export. So it doesn’t seam to be easily possible to change the translated terms from my module. One solution I came up with is to explicitly change the term in ir_translation using XML, but this is a bit cumbersome. ``` ``` How did you handle this? Is there any other easy and robust, code based option for globally renaming terms (e.g. menu entries) from within a customization module? Thanks. Regards, Peter
by Pete Hahn - 11:30 - 31 Aug 2020-
Re: Robust renaming in code
Thanks, the i18n_extra folder was the thing I didn’t knew off. Am 31.08.20 um 11:41 schrieb Pedro M. Baeza (Tecnativa): > I "forbid" (not real forbidding, but persuasion) to do this in my customers, as the maintenance cost for such a whim doesn't worth it IMO. They adapt to current nomenclature easily when you involve serious (but real) costs about that. … I know, but … well … you know ;-)
by Pete Hahn - 12:16 - 31 Aug 2020 -
Re: Robust renaming in code
I "forbid" (not real forbidding, but persuasion) to do this in my customers, as the maintenance cost for such a whim doesn't worth it IMO. They adapt to current nomenclature easily when you involve serious (but real) costs about that.Anyway, if you still want do it, it depends on what to rename:- Fields: override `string` attribute of the field.- Menus: XML with the original XML-ID, but for translations, you need to add a i18n_extra folder.- Hardcoded string in reports: XML inheritance, replacing contents (which is also very bad for compatibility, but reduced if using a lower priority - 9999 or so-).Regards.
by Pedro M. Baeza - 11:41 - 31 Aug 2020
-