Skip to content

Conversation

@AungKoKoLin1997
Copy link
Contributor

@AungKoKoLin1997 AungKoKoLin1997 commented Dec 17, 2025

Supersedes #72

@qrtl QT5088

Co-authored-by: Florent de Labarre <florent.mirieu@gmail.com>
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @yostashiro, @AungKoKoLin1997,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

Copy link
Contributor

@nobuQuartile nobuQuartile left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Functional review

Copy link
Member

@flotho flotho left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi
Thanks for the PR.
I get the point.
Yet I'm wondering why you didn't defined a default value as a system parameter.
For sure one can argue that "BIG" database depends on so many factor as the server size, setup, etc... yet if you're pointing 5000 in you exemple maybe you've experienced such kind of limitation.
hat is you PoV on this?

Regards

@AungKoKoLin1997
Copy link
Contributor Author

AungKoKoLin1997 commented Dec 19, 2025

Yet I'm wondering why you didn't defined a default value as a system parameter.
For sure one can argue that "BIG" database depends on so many factor as the server size, setup, etc... yet if you're pointing 5000 in you exemple maybe you've experienced such kind of limitation.

@flotho
I’m not sure I fully understand your point.
My preference was to avoid setting a default limit, because the module is intended to run without any limitation in most environments. The limitation is meant to be applied only for databases with a very large volume of data.
We’ve documented this in CONFIGURE.md: users can set the limit when they actually need it for their environment.

Copy link
Member

@flotho flotho left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@yostashiro yostashiro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it'd be good to have a default value as @flotho suggests, but I'm not against having no value either.

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

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). 🤖

Copy link
Member

@etobella etobella left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense

@etobella
Copy link
Member

/ocabot merge patch

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you.
Prepared branch 18.0-ocabot-merge-pr-125-by-etobella-bump-patch, awaiting test results.

@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit 7315a20 into OCA:18.0 Dec 22, 2025
9 checks passed
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 718c636. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants