[16.0] Module remove_odoo_enterprise breaks contract_forecast settings view (at least)

[fcayre]

The remove_odoo_enterprise hides 2 fields added by module contract_forecast to Settings > General settings > Invoicing: contract_forecast_interval and contract_forecast_rule_type.

Module

remove_odoo_enterprise

Describe the bug

Module contract_forecast settings view adds 2 fields, which the remove_odoo_enterprise module hides in the _hide_empty_containers method.

To Reproduce

Affected versions: 16.0.2.0.4 (and contract_forecast 16.0.1.0.0)

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. install both modules
2. go to Settings > General settings > Invoicing, section Contract
3. contract_forecast_interval and contract_forecast_rule_type are absent

Expected behavior
contract_forecast_interval and contract_forecast_rule_type should be present in the settings as intended by the contract_forecast module.

Additional context
The way _hide_empty_containers works looks dangerous as it expects the setting fields to be surrounded by a <div> tag with the class o_setting_box, which is not the case in the contract_forecast module.

An easy fix is to add the markup remove_odoo_enterprise expects to the contract_forecast setting view, but I doubt it is a durable choice. Any comments welcome.

[remi-filament]

Hi @fcayre
The PR on remove_odoo_enterprise #98 merged end of May 2027 has redefined the way fields / divs are hidden in settings views.
Basically, any div with o_settings_container which does not contain any div "with class o_setting_box and without class d-none" is hidden (so if you do not have a div with class o_setting_box the parent div with class o_settings_container is hidden as well).

The problem is then that in contract_forecast you have a div with class o_settings_container but there is no below div with class o_setting_box so it is hidden).

From my point of view you should rework the view on contract_forecast to add this div with class o_setting_box like it is done on all other res.config.settings views... This view should have been reworked when migrating to version 16.0

[fcayre]

Thanks @remi-filament yes, this is what I did in OCA/contract#1363, but this is a very fragile convention, which has to be kept in mind while doing totally different work... This is why I wanted to discuss that with others.

Anyway if you think there is no other solid solution, I close this issue. Please review the PR on contract_forecast :)