| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Fri Dec 30 00:00:01 CET 2011 | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:01 <jcm> hi all | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:02 <jcm> is there a recommended practice for the name field in addresses? should the party name be repeated in address or never? should it be the name of the main person contact? | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:03 <jcm> with a party who has both shipment and invoicing addresses, I get twice the party name on documents because I repeated the party name in one of theses address | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:27 <udono> jcm: Hi, you can use the name field on party, when the (postal) addressee is different from the party name. E.g.: | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:27 <udono> ACME inc. | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:27 <udono> Mr. Dagobert Duck | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:27 <udono> ... | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:29 <cedk> udono: I think your example is badly choosen :-( | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:29 <udono> cedk: ? | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:29 <cedk> the name of the address is for example: | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:30 <cedk> the building name or the block name etc. | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:30 <cedk> using person name is wrong because it makes think that the address is a contact which is not | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:32 <udono> cedk: a contact in tryton is always a phone number, an email address, an url... how to mix it with a person name? | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:34 <cedk> udono: it must be done by a futur CRM module | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:35 <cedk> udono: that will link parties | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:39 <udono> cedk: for linking parties I have this old blue print http://codereview.appspot.com/2001042 | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:42 <cedk> udono: it is not what I have in mind | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:44 <cedk> udono: I think more like the The Data Model Resource Book | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:48 <udono> cedk: this blue print is thought as an adaption of the low level party functionalities :-) | ||
| 2011-12-30 11:54 <udono> ... provided in the Data Model Resource Book | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:49 <udono> cedk: nicoe: How to prepare the migration to GTK3 starting on Monday in a week? Do you have a link list or a draft plan? | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:50 <nicoe> udono: http://live.gnome.org/PyGObject/IntrospectionPorting | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:51 <nicoe> I think we will share a mq repository with the patches for the GI switch | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:51 <nicoe> and fix bug as they appear | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:52 <cedk> udono: I plan to maintain a mq repo with GI | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:53 <cedk> udono: because GI is not yet available on Windows nor MacOS | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:54 <cedk> udono: and also perhaps backport some part to main repo if it simplify the GI branch | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:56 <udono> cedk: nicoe: ok, thanks for the point | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:57 <udono> cedk: nicoe: so Tryton 2.4 will not have a windows client? (MacOS X client was last seen in 1.8) | ||
| 2011-12-30 13:58 <cedk> udono: no it will in a mq repo | ||
| 2011-12-30 14:00 <udono> cedk: ok, understand. So we prepare for the day when GI arrives in Windows and MacosX. | ||
| 2011-12-30 14:01 <cedk> udono: yes, I think we will perhaps release a tryton-gi that works only on X11 | ||
| 2011-12-30 17:28 <jcm> running update in cli after changing a report, I get: WARNING:convert:Field style of 220@ir.action.report not updated (id: report_invoice_new), because it has changed since the last update | ||
| 2011-12-30 17:28 <jcm> what has changed? could I have changed ir.action.report from client without knowing? | ||
| 2011-12-30 17:35 <cedk> jcm: it is perhaps because the XML definition was not accurate at one time | ||
| 2011-12-30 17:38 <jcm> is it possible to reset the cached report by hand in the db? | ||
| 2011-12-30 17:39 <cedk> jcm: must update the corresponding ir.model.data record | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:08 <jcm> cedk: in fact seems not to be important, report is nethertheless updated in db, enough for my test | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:08 <jcm> I tried with <field name="style"></field> in my xml, seems to change nothing | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:09 <jcm> my last problem is that the footpage of my new invoice template is not used | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:09 <jcm> seems that the page style of my invoice template is ignored or not copied | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:10 <cedk> jcm: is there a style define on the report action? | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:14 <jcm> no, it's the only line with style in my own <record model="ir.action.report" id="report_invoice_new"> | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:14 <jcm> I tried with my own style file defined too, same behaviour | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:16 <cedk> jcm: normally if style is empty in ir.action.report, the engine does nothing to the header | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:21 <jcm> how can I check that "style is empty in ir.action.report" ? select * from ir_model_data where model='ir.action.report' ? I see only standard reports here, not my custom | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:23 <cedk> jcm: you can look in Administration/User Interface/Actions/Reports | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:36 <jcm> right, there is a style here; I cannot reset it via the client; setting <field name="style">my_module/invoice.odt</field> doesn't work either | ||
| 2011-12-30 18:38 <cedk> jcm: the simpler is to remove the corresponding record in ir.model.data and make a new update of the database | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:18 <jcm> cedk: I wanted to ask you precisions about locations and stock relation with accounting | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:18 <jcm> when I use 'deposit' I send products to a seller that will sell it later (or not) | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:19 <jcm> periodically I need to list those deposit places and invoice the sold items | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:19 <jcm> should I create a special location for this ? one per reseller or a global one ? | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:20 <cedk> jcm: do you need to know the quantity per reseller? | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:20 <jcm> I'd like tryton to keep the list of which and how many for each reseller | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:20 <cedk> jcm: so you must create a location per reseller | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:22 <jcm> ok and is this location of Customer type ? or of storage type ? | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:27 <cedk> jcm: I think it must be a storage because the product is still own by the company | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:27 <cedk> jcm: and so it must be part of his stock valuation | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:28 <jcm> cedk: I have another more complicated case: we also distribute some others' products and handle their stock | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:29 <jcm> should we have their products in the same location as ours ? | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:29 <jcm> I don't want them to be in our accounting since we pay their products once we sold them | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:29 <jcm> I don't own them, I take car of their stock and sell them | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:30 <cedk> jcm: don't know perhaps a supplier location | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:30 <jcm> it's suppliers's products | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:31 <jcm> but I will send some of these suppliers's products to reseller too, in deposit | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:31 <jcm> so if deposit location is of storage type, their stock will be evaluated as ours :/ | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:34 <cedk> jcm: I don't know | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:37 <jcm> cedk: the thing you probably know is: why do you say that storage type locations is owned by the company ? is there some link between accounting and storage ? I don't see it in stock/doc/index.rst | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:38 <cedk> jcm: there is if you do stock accounting | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:39 <jcm> with accoutnt_stock_continental ? | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:39 <cedk> jcm: yes | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:42 <jcm> cedk: iiic, this module allows to evaluate stock value at anytime, istn't it ? | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:43 <jcm> I could live without it and evaluate the stock by hand, and so I could use stock features without thinking to whom belongs each product ? | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:44 <cedk> jcm: if you want | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:44 <cedk> jcm: there is also the cost_price that could be wrongly computed | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:45 <cedk> jcm: if it is set to average or FIFO | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:48 <jcm> cedk: where does the cost_price be used ? curretly we use cost_price for products only in analytic | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:53 <cedk> jcm: it is used for stock accounting most of the time | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:56 <jcm> cedk: we work with fixed prices for all products we resell, so stock accounting is quite simple; handling deposit and inventories is our main goal | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:57 <jcm> is there some fine grain in stcok description ? like pack / box / palet / truck... | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:58 <jcm> s/palet/pallet | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:59 <jcm> I cannot use units beacause for each product I have a different number of unit in a box | ||
| 2011-12-30 19:59 <jcm> and a different number of box on each pallet | ||
| 2011-12-30 20:21 <jcm> what are view location type for ? | ||
| 2011-12-30 20:22 <jcm> seems that only Warehaouse can have sublocations, not Storage? | ||
| 2011-12-30 20:38 <cedk> jcm: view location are just location that can not have move on it | ||
| 2011-12-30 20:38 <cedk> jcm: I don't see why you said storage can not have sublocations? | ||
| 2011-12-30 21:30 <jcm> cedk: because when I create a new location, parent is grayed with 'warehouse' predefined | ||
| 2011-12-30 23:04 <cedk> jcm: it is because you create it via the tree view |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!