Repository navigation
[19.0][IMP] partner_email_check: allow bypassing the checks per operation #2416
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
cliffkujala
wants to merge
2
commits into
OCA:19.0
Choose a base branch
from
Corsa-pro:19.0-partner_email_check-gateway-bypass
base: 19.0
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1 +1,24 @@ | ||
| This module integrate automatically in all of the view `res.partner` | ||
|
|
||
| ## Bypassing the checks for a single operation | ||
|
|
||
| The checks run on every `res.partner` create and write. That is what you want | ||
| for an address a user typed, but not for one your code did not collect from a | ||
| user: the incoming mail gateway creates a partner for the sender of every | ||
| message it accepts, and bulk senders routinely send from a subdomain that | ||
| publishes no MX record, so a deliverability failure there discards the message | ||
| rather than improving anyone's data. | ||
|
|
||
| Two context keys turn a check off for one operation: | ||
|
|
||
| ```python | ||
| # Store the address even though its domain accepts no mail. | ||
| partner.with_context(partner_email_check_skip_deliverability=True).write(vals) | ||
|
|
||
| # Store it without validating or normalizing it at all. | ||
| partner.with_context(partner_email_check_skip_syntax=True).write(vals) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| `partner_email_check_skip_deliverability` keeps validation and normalization and | ||
| skips only the DNS lookup. `partner_email_check_skip_syntax` skips both, exactly | ||
| as disabling the company setting does. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe it's a personal take, but IMO it's better to use positive flags
Meaning: by default it's True, but you can set it to False explicitly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, I did weigh the positive form. I kept
skip_because a company setting is also in play here. Withpartner_email_check_deliverability,Truewouldn't mean "check deliverability". It would mean "defer to the company setting", so a caller who writeswith_context(partner_email_check_deliverability=True)to force the DNS check on a company that has it off would quietly get no check. Askip_key only promises what it does: it can turn a check off for one operation, never on. It also matches how core names one-operation bypasses (skip_account_move_synchronization,skip_sms,skip_activity). The default-Trueflags likeactive_testhave no setting competing with them.If you'd still prefer a positive form, I think it should be a real override (unset means the company setting,
Trueforces the check on,Falseturns it off), so thatTruemeans what it says. Happy to switch to that if you'd rather.