Simplify declaration of views

Feature Ideas
1

While views are an important concept in Tryton, declaring views in .xml currently is somehow “overhead-ish” and involves quite some redundancy.

Here is an example for declaring tree different views for one model:

    <record model="ir.ui.view" id="station_view_form">
      <field name="model">delivery_tour.station</field>
      <field name="type">form</field>
      <field name="name">station_form</field>
    </record>
    <record model="ir.ui.view" id="station_view_list">
      <field name="model">delivery_tour.station</field>
      <field name="priority" eval="20"/>
      <field name="type">tree</field>
      <field name="name">station_list</field>
    </record>
    <record model="ir.ui.view" id="station_view_tree_sequence">
      <field name="model">delivery_tour.station</field>
      <field name="type">tree</field>
      <field name="priority" eval="10"/>
      <field name="name">station_tree_sequence</field>
    </record>

I propose to add a “views” first-class element like this:

    <views model="delivery_tour.station">
      <view id="station_view_form" type="form">station_form</view>
      <view id="station_view_list" type="tree" priority="10">station_list</view>
      <view id="station_view_sequence" type="tree" priority="20">
	    station_tree_sequence
      </view>
    </views>

or like this:

    <views model="delivery_tour.station">
      <form id="station_view_form" >station_form</form>
      <tree id="station_view_list" priority="10">station_list</free>
      <tree id="station_view_sequence" priority="20">
         station_tree_sequence</tree>
    </views>

Of course for backward-compatibility the current structure should still be valid for some time.

What do you think?

2

I think it’s better to have a generic solution that may work on all XML structure and not only for views.

For me this is a specific use case of Templating the XML files

3

We’ve already thought about using a more complicated (yet more semantic) XML structure. But our current parser is actually quite simple and it has its kind of beauty in the fact that it’s a thin layer on top of the record creation.

But indeed, your view definitions are way more user friendly than what’s currently in tryton.

4

Of course the same should be done for other structures. I just focused in views here for briefness.