| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Sat Aug 14 00:00:02 CEST 2010 | ||
| 2010-08-14 00:50 -!- sharoon(~sharoon@vpn16.its.manchester.ac.uk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 00:50 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 00:53 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 01:49 -!- zodman(~Miranda@67.223.236.231) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 03:20 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 06:58 -!- digitalsatori(~tony@116.233.241.200) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 07:31 -!- digitalsatori(~tony@116.233.241.200) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 10:45 -!- evernichon(~evernicho@goy81-1-82-245-223-226.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 10:55 -!- evernichon1(~evernicho@goy81-1-82-245-223-226.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 11:02 -!- sharoon(~sharoon@vpn50.its.manchester.ac.uk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 13:53 -!- sharoon(~sharoon@vpn50.its.manchester.ac.uk) has left #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 13:57 -!- sharoon(~sharoon@vpn103.its.manchester.ac.uk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 16:48 -!- gremly(~gremly@190.26.152.66) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 17:02 -!- digitalsatori(~tony@116.233.241.200) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 17:06 -!- woakas(~woakas@pcsp163-59.supercabletv.net.co) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 17:24 -!- FWiesing(~FWiesing@85-126-100-130.work.xdsl-line.inode.at) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 19:21 -!- ikks(~ikks@190.158.116.213) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 19:40 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 19:59 <cedk> is there someone who already test nested extension? | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:04 <zodman> here not .. i reading your email cedk | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:05 <cedk> I have uploaded a new version with some more test | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:05 <cedk> I think it is complet now | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:05 <cedk> I'm just wondering if I should add mcommit or not | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:06 <zodman> try to add all features as you can and release like other apps on github or bitbucket... for getting adepts | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:06 <zodman> i think | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:07 <cedk> zodman: I will put on hg.tryton.org | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:07 <zodman> ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:08 <cedk> but I like to have always a working version in repo | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:10 <zodman> passing to other topic | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:11 <zodman> cedk: the module support tickets you know if someone work on it ? | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:11 <cedk> zodman: which module? | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:11 <zodman> not a module sorry i mean "blueprint" | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:12 <zodman> http://code.google.com/p/tryton/wiki/support_system | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:13 <cedk> zodman: don't know | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:14 <cedk> zodman: I think it is sharoon who wrote it | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:14 <cedk> sharoon: ping | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:14 <sharoon> cedk: hi | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:14 <sharoon> cedk: i tested nested | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:16 <sharoon> zodman: i wrote the blueprint | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:16 <sharoon> zodman: i think the blueprint has to be rewritten | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:16 <zodman> you know if someone having code of it ? | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:16 <zodman> because i want develop it for getting learn tryton modules | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:17 <sharoon> zodman: i think i have the code, but never released it because it s not upto tryton standard | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:17 <sharoon> zodman: also, i think a better way to do it would be to extend the project/task (work) module | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:17 <sharoon> zodman: probably cedk could advice on that | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:17 <sharoon> zodman: else you will have to recreate a lot of things | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:18 <zodman> :o | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:19 <zodman> the objective for work on support system its for learn ... but thinking now it cause conflicts with bugs.tryton.org ? | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:20 <zodman> its cause recreate the wheel ? | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:20 <sharoon> zodman: i dont think its reinventing | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:20 <sharoon> zodman: a project management system + support system could be used by a service providing company | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:21 <sharoon> zodman: you could refer to some designs from ticket systems widely available in other platforms | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:21 <zodman> both on same tool. | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:21 <zodman> mmmm, you are right! | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:22 <sharoon> cedk: could you comment pls? | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:27 <cedk> sharoon: I don't know | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:27 <sharoon> zodman: may be i take some out today to revise the blueprint | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:27 <cedk> I'm not sure ticket system is really like project | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:28 <cedk> mainly because tickets are not "schedulable" | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:28 <sharoon> cedk: ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:28 <cedk> I was more thinking that it could be link to the email system | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:29 <sharoon> cedk: yep | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:29 <cedk> but not sure | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:29 <cedk> it is perhaps just a module that must be able to convert emails into tickets | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:31 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:35 <cedk> sharoon: any way, I find the current design in the blueprint a little bit too complex for a starting module | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:35 <sharoon> yes | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:35 <sharoon> i am editing it right now | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:36 <zodman> xD excelente! | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:45 <sharoon> zodman: cedk : could you please check if the design makes sense | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:46 <zodman> checking | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:51 <zodman> sharoon: for getting the ticket i think the best is take 3 types of ticket | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:52 <zodman> 2 types: open, closed | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:52 <zodman> the open tickets can set a lot of labels | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:52 <zodman> but taking it like open | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:52 <zodman> examples: | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:52 <zodman> label of ticket type open: New, Accepted,Started | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:53 <sharoon> zodman: the open and closed are taken care in the boolen field closed | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:53 <sharoon> the other labels are taken care of in status | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:53 <zodman> label of ticket type closed: Fixed,Invalid, NotReproduced... | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:54 <sharoon> zodman: just refresh | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:54 <zodman> oooooooooooh ok ok ok ... | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:54 <sharoon> i had missed one line | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:54 <zodman> :) | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:54 <sharoon> fixed | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:54 <zodman> excelent. | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:55 <sharoon> zodman: maybe we could add sort order in status codes, so that HIgh can be on top of the list and very low in the bottom | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:56 <sharoon> zodman: added that also to design | ||
| 2010-08-14 20:57 <zodman> sharoon: plz add description entry on ticket. | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:01 <cedk> sharoon: I think department should not be in base module | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:01 <sharoon> zodman: done, also added certain future improvements | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:01 <cedk> it can be added later by other module | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:02 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:03 <zodman> i understand the singleto but when you refer a Configuration (Singleton) its for complete module configuration ? | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:03 <zodman> on Support Management >> Configuration>Ticket Settings ? | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:04 <cedk> sharoon: I think you should not mix status and priority | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:04 <sharoon> cedk: do you suggest separate models? | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:04 <zodman> as the same logic | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:06 <zodman> i think can be hold on same model. | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:08 <cedk> sharoon: I think priority is not well represented with a single field | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:08 <cedk> it is a bad concept | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:08 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:09 <cedk> we should be inspired by the GTD | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:09 <cedk> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:09 <sharoon> reading | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:09 <zodman> exist a gnome app for GTD | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:10 <cedk> in fact the priority is a value linked to many thing and in particulary on time | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:10 <sharoon> cedk: ok, so can you propose how we do this? | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:11 <zodman> http://gtg.fritalk.com/ | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:11 <cedk> sharoon: not yet :-) | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:11 <cedk> but I pretty sure that it must not be a simple many2one | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:12 <sharoon> ACTION brb | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:13 <cedk> as you can see we did not put pripority field on project.work | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:13 <cedk> by the way, I'm thinking that ticket could extend timesheet.work as project.work extend it | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:14 <cedk> like that employee can enter timesheet on it | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:16 <cedk> ACTION lunch | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:23 <sharoon> sorry guys back | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:23 <sharoon> cedk: i thought of the same thing before | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:23 <sharoon> i think it shold be just another model like project.task | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:25 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:30 <zodman> ACTION checking project.work | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:35 -!- carlos_(~carlos@84.120.37.193.dyn.user.ono.com) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:48 <zodman> on project.work not put priority ... put order sequence... | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:50 <zodman> well i start hacking .. and if neccesary change it ... | ||
| 2010-08-14 21:50 <zodman> :> | ||
| 2010-08-14 22:06 <cedk> zodman: I tried to explain that priority is not static it depends on time | ||
| 2010-08-14 22:15 <zodman> ok ok. | ||
| 2010-08-14 22:15 <zodman> seen like that way must divide ... | ||
| 2010-08-14 22:18 <cedk> zodman: yes that is why I don't want to have it in the standard module | ||
| 2010-08-14 22:39 -!- FWiesing(~FWiesing@85-126-100-130.work.xdsl-line.inode.at) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 22:42 -!- yangoon(~mathiasb@p549F7F83.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:43 <cedk> sharoon: ping | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:43 <sharoon> cedk: ping accepted :) | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:44 <cedk> I have other comments on ticket system | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:44 <sharoon> cedk: i agree with the fact that the ticket is more like the projet.work so should be modelled similar to project.task | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:44 <cedk> sharoon: ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:44 <cedk> it is about the followup | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:44 <sharoon> ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:45 <cedk> I think we need to have only one model which is ticket | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:45 <cedk> and we track change on it with history | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:45 -!- eLBati(~elbati@94.163.42.110) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:45 <cedk> and indeed user modify it to communicate | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:45 <sharoon> ok, got you, | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:46 <sharoon> what do we call that text field? | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:46 <sharoon> Followup itself? | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:46 <cedk> sharoon: we should just have some trick for comments because it must be clear when reading ticket | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:47 <cedk> sharoon: not sure because followup is more the history itself | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:48 <sharoon> cedk: agree | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:48 <cedk> sharoon: I think description or note is good | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:48 <sharoon> cedk: agree | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:48 <sharoon> cedk: i am not clear about what you said about comments | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:49 <cedk> sharoon: if we have only ticket models so the history of the comment/description/note field will give use the communication | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:49 <sharoon> cedk: agree | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:50 <cedk> sharoon: but when you read the ticket to leave a comment then you need to have a cleared field instead of the last comment | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:50 <cedk> sharoon: so I think we will need to have some workarround for that but it is implementation detail | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:50 <sharoon> we could override read method to clear the field if its there | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:51 <sharoon> or make comment a fcuntional field | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:51 <sharoon> the setter should set the setter field? | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:51 <cedk> sharoon: yes we will see at implementation level | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:51 <sharoon> cedk: ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:51 <cedk> sharoon: I think function field will be cleaner | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:52 <sharoon> agree | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:52 <cedk> sharoon: next step :-) | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:52 <cedk> owner, I don't think it is a good name | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:52 <sharoon> cedk: assignee? | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:52 <cedk> sharoon: yes: assigned_to | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:52 <sharoon> cedk: ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:53 <cedk> sharoon: but you need one other field which could be named owner that is a m2o to party | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:53 <sharoon> cedk: ok | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:53 <cedk> sharoon: and it will represent the party who creates the ticket | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:53 <cedk> like that it could be a customer/supplier or employee etc. | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:54 <sharoon> cedk: thats cleaner | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:54 <cedk> but assigneed_to must be m2o to employee | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:54 <sharoon> just replacing owner wid that! | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:54 <cedk> I don't see the useness of the flag_closed | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:55 <sharoon> cedk: we could probably have a different model for ticket status, in which we could tag a state as a end state | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:55 <sharoon> and the flag_closed should be a boolean field which gets the value from the state it is in | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:56 <sharoon> so many states could be end (eg: Fix released, Wont Fix) | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:56 <cedk> sharoon: I don't see why you want to have a end state? | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:56 <sharoon> cedk: you mean to say that a ticket could go back any day to state 1? | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:56 <sharoon> cedk: thats possible too | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:56 <cedk> most of the time it is just a convention and fixed/wont fix etc. can be reopen | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:57 <sharoon> cedk: agree | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:57 <cedk> sharoon: yes so what is the usage of this "end state"? | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:57 <sharoon> cedk: may be reporting? | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:57 <sharoon> cedk: its useless | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:57 <sharoon> cedk: removed! | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:58 <sharoon> cedk: any idea about priority, i agree it would be cool to have automatically computed priority | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:58 <cedk> sharoon: I think it is enough to handle by grouping on state | ||
| 2010-08-14 23:58 <sharoon> cedk: (agree on that) |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!