[18.0][IMP] product_cost_security: Make tests more resilient

[sergio-teruel]

@Tecnativa

ping @carlosdauden @CarlosRoca13

[OCA-git-bot]

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

[CarlosRoca13]

LGTM

[carlos-lopez-tecnativa]

The logic of this module is not exclusive to the standard_price field; it applies to every field that has the group product_cost_security.group_product_cost defined in its field definition. So, I think it is better to use the function _product_cost_security_fields to check this.

Additionally, I returned the super() call.
What do you think about this approach?

Suggested change

	if (
	config["test_enable"]
	and not self.env.context.get("testing_product_cost_security")
	and "standard_price" in fields
	):
	# By default in other tests users have not this security group, so do this
	# only when we are testing this module.
	return fields
	product_cost_fields = self._product_cost_security_fields().intersection(
	valid_fields
	)
	if (
	config["test_enable"]
	and not self.env.context.get("testing_product_cost_security")
	and product_cost_fields
	):
	# By default in other tests users have not this security group, so do this
	# only when we are testing this module.
	return valid_fields

[yajo]

suggestion: alter context in test only once, here:

Suggested change

	cls.env = cls.env(context=dict(cls.env.context, disable_auto_svl=True, testing_product_cost_security=True))

[sergio-teruel]

@yajo @carlos-lopez-tecnativa Changes done!

[pedrobaeza]

The string comparison for this is very fragile and difficult to debug if upstream the message is changed (or maybe translated). Isn't there other way to get this? Or only look for "standard_price" term?