| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Thu Apr 11 00:00:01 CEST 2013 | ||
| 2013-04-11 00:22 <plantian> Is it possible to detect if the client cache is on or not? | ||
| 2013-04-11 00:40 <cedk> plantian: it is always except if you start it with -d | ||
| 2013-04-11 09:58 <giedrius> cedk: i'm trying to write test scenario for fifo moves, but i don't know the best way to do it. http://pastebin.com/AyWgg76y | ||
| 2013-04-11 09:58 <cedk> giedrius: I'll be back in 1-2 hours | ||
| 2013-04-11 09:59 <giedrius> cedk: what is the best practice: create company, currency, etc inside this test scenario or use test scenarios of company module for example | ||
| 2013-04-11 09:59 <giedrius> cedk: okay | ||
| 2013-04-11 11:56 <cedk> giedrius: yes you can look at other scenario | ||
| 2013-04-11 12:14 <cedk> giedrius: I have updated the codereview | ||
| 2013-04-11 12:37 <giedrius> cedk: but do i need to create all object needed for stock move, like company, currency, etc? | ||
| 2013-04-11 12:38 <giedrius> cedk: i mean, for test scenarion on product_cost_fifo | ||
| 2013-04-11 12:42 <cedk> giedrius: yes you have to create all needed | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:08 <giedrius> cedk: what could be the problem, that stock moves cannot be created from test scenario | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:08 <giedrius> cedk: UserError: ('UserError', (u'You try to bypass an access rule.\n(Document type: stock.move)', '')) | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:09 <giedrius> cedk: do i need to create a user with full access rights? | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:09 <cedk> giedrius: perhaps wrong company | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:10 <giedrius> cedk: i have this code http://pastebin.com/b9PQmgJ9 | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:10 <giedrius> cedk: company is created on the same test scenario | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:18 <cedk> giedrius: you should write a scenario instead of unittest | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:18 <giedrius> cedk: what do you mean by scenario? | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:18 <cedk> giedrius: because you miss all the context/user management that proetus gives | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:19 <cedk> giedrius: the files starting with scenario_* | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:19 <giedrius> cedk: ok, let me check | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:24 <giedrius> cedk: cool, this looks nice, thanks | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:58 <giedrius> cedk: i have a test scenario, how to attach it to your issue review? | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:58 <cedk> giedrius: you can't | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:58 <cedk> giedrius: any way, they will be commit separatly | ||
| 2013-04-11 13:59 <giedrius> cedk: so contribute by another review or commit? | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:04 <cedk> giedrius: yes do an other review | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:05 <giedrius> ech, seems the life is not easy, there is no such a thing as staging on hg :( | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:05 <giedrius> cedk: i guess i cannot put review by ignoring some other changes on repository? | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:07 <Pilou> giedrius: with upload.py you can specify files | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:08 <giedrius> Pilou: Can I do the same on hg review? | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:11 <Pilou> i don't know | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:12 <cedk> giedrius: you can use mq | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:12 <giedrius> checking docs now, but seems it's not possible | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:13 <giedrius> seems the easiest way is to copy&paste the file and undo changes | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:17 <Pilou> you could 'shelve' unwanted modifications (http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ShelveExtension) | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:18 <giedrius> hm, i get error, Issue creation errors: {'issue': ['This issue is closed (776002)']} | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:18 <giedrius> how to post to the new review? | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:19 <giedrius> ah, -c :-) | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:24 <cedk> giedrius: I guess the scenario works with my patch? | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:25 <giedrius> cedk: unfortunatly, no | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:48 <sisalp> hello, is there an asset management module in Tryton ? | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:49 <cedk> sisalp: yes in trunk | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:49 <sisalp> will be included in 2.8 ? | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:51 <cedk> sisalp: yes | ||
| 2013-04-11 14:51 <sisalp> bravo | ||
| 2013-04-11 15:28 <plantian> Hey guys is there anything I can tweak on the server to improve performance? I have a wizard that completes the whole sale workflow automatically and it takes from 30 seconds to over a minute to complete. | ||
| 2013-04-11 16:12 <cedk> plantian: difficult to say, you need to analyse the bottleneck | ||
| 2013-04-11 16:41 <cedk> giedrius: the scenario doesn't work at least because there are errors in it | ||
| 2013-04-11 16:41 <cedk> giedrius: I will make comments | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:14 <giedrius> cedk: yeah, lame mistake by me :) but seems it still does not work | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:14 <giedrius> i'll test manually | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:23 <cedk> giedrius: I think I have a fix | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:23 <cedk> giedrius: but I see that for the second move it picks the second one fully instead of 1 on the first and 1 on the second | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:30 <giedrius> cedk: or we can wait my implementation using links between fifo moves :) | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:31 <cedk> giedrius: it will not change anything | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:31 <giedrius> cedk: having links will be more clear implementation and less error prone | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:33 <cedk> giedrius: no, it is just historical information | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:33 <cedk> giedrius: it will not fix computation error | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:36 <giedrius> cedk: it depends how it will be done. in my opinion, current implementation makes too much db queries, i think it could be optimized a bit | ||
| 2013-04-11 17:38 <giedrius> i must go now, see you |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!