| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Fri Apr 12 00:00:02 CEST 2013 | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:40 <cedk> giedrius: I got the scenario working | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:40 <cedk> giedrius: my patch was not completly clean, now it is | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:40 <cedk> giedrius: there was also some issue in the scenario | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:41 <giedrius> cedk: yes, tell me | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:42 <cedk> giedrius: it is on the codereview | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:44 <cedk> giedrius: it was really linked to AR migration | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:44 <cedk> giedrius: but now we have a scenario, it should no more happen | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:46 <giedrius> cedk: ah, i was hurry on test scenarion, now i see the mistakes.. | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:52 <giedrius> cedk: now the test scenario runs successfully, thanks | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:53 <cedk> giedrius: I had to fix when update fifo was called | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:53 <cedk> giedrius: I think it is now correct but I will be interrested to have peer review | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:53 <cedk> giedrius: now, it is called each time a product leave the storage | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:59 <cedk> giedrius: going to sleep, see you tomorrow | ||
| 2013-04-12 00:59 <giedrius> cedk: i'll check deeper on this topic tomorrow and weekend | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:00 <giedrius> cedk: but the code looks a bit complex for what i does | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:00 <giedrius> cedk: i mean things like self.write([self.__class__(move.id)], {}) does not look very coder-friendly :-) | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:00 <cedk> giedrius: which part ? | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:01 <cedk> giedrius: if it is just that, no worry | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:02 <cedk> giedrius: it is just a way to update the move because move.save() could no more be used because we need to change quantity | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:02 <giedrius> cedk: for me it is a bit not understandable why move.fifo_quantity = .., or self.write([move.id]) didn't work | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:04 <cedk> giedrius: first one is because I change the move.quantity | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:04 <cedk> giedrius: second is because write take an instance not an id (id is old fashion) | ||
| 2013-04-12 01:04 <cedk> giedrius: bye | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:08 <giedrius> cedk: in case of msg13046, i think, it should be possible to select which products (moves), you want to return | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:10 <giedrius> cedk: for example you have 100 items @ 5€, then you order 100 @ 20€, and later you want to return these recently bought products 100 @ 20€ to supplier | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:11 <giedrius> cedk: currently, it will return 100 @ 5€ and not @ 20€ | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:18 <cedk> giedrius: you have to set the unit price | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:19 <cedk> giedrius: oops no, indeed it takes as fifo | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:20 <cedk> giedrius: my first comment was right | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:21 <giedrius> cedk: it is not possible to specify unit price on supplier return shipment | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:23 <cedk> giedrius: that's an issue but you should enter it with a purchase | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:24 <giedrius> cedk: ok, i'll test the return using purchase order | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:27 <cedk> giedrius: but yes I think unit price should be visible on move to supplier | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:32 <giedrius> cedk: but i'm not sure if this helps for FIFO case, as the first move will be consumed (not tested yet, just an assumption) | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:37 <cedk> giedrius: normally no, because get_fifo_move search from newer to older | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:39 <giedrius> cedk: better case would be: 100 @ 5€, 100 @ 20€ and 100 @ 10€. And I want to return 100 @ 20€ | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:40 <cedk> giedrius: indeed I think it is something that should not happens in real life | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:41 <cedk> giedrius: product should have the property to be equivalent | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:41 <cedk> giedrius: once in the warehouse you can not distinct them | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:44 <cedk> giedrius: but what you can do is to filll the fifo_quantity of the second one to change the default behavior which will always take the first one | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:45 <cedk> giedrius: but I would say it is an advanced feature | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:45 <giedrius> cedk: lets say, you get broken products to your input location, later you receive few more packages, and only later when you move the package to storage location, you notice that the items are broken. At this point you can still distinguish the cost price of this package | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:45 <cedk> giedrius: defautl behavior is FIFO | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:46 <cedk> giedrius: I would like to know the supplier that will take back such broken product at cost price | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:48 <giedrius> cedk: broken (faulty) or wrong items by supplier | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:48 <giedrius> cedk: for sure, it is not common case, but sometimes it happens | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:50 <cedk> giedrius: normally once you acknoledge the receipt, a supplier will be a fool to beleive you about mistakes | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:50 <cedk> giedrius: and acknowledge the receipt is validate the shipment | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:51 <cedk> giedrius: any way, as I said for FIFO it is just a matter to update the fifo quantity on the right moves | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:51 <cedk> giedrius: because the design for now is to be FIFO so it returns the first in | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:52 <giedrius> cedk: i think, it is enough to have the possibilty to update fifo qty manually | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:53 <giedrius> cedk: but in this case, wouldn't it be LIFO? | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:53 <giedrius> cedk: like i want to return it which was last bought | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:54 <cedk> giedrius: the function is generic, it doesn't know in which cases you are | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:54 <cedk> giedrius: like you could also have trash products | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:56 <cedk> giedrius: so the function was design to be resilient | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:56 <cedk> giedrius: it is a kind design I always try to put in Tryton | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:57 <cedk> because at the end any cost method is always an approximation and over time it should tend to the right value | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:58 <cedk> so cost computation should try to forget old errors | ||
| 2013-04-12 12:59 <giedrius> cedk: i like this kind of design | ||
| 2013-04-12 13:00 <giedrius> cedk: just thinking about all possible situations as real world is not perfect :) | ||
| 2013-04-12 13:05 <cedk> giedrius: of course, but we should also try to keep base as simple as possible | ||
| 2013-04-12 13:05 <cedk> giedrius: if you get a rare cases, our goal is that it can be managed by extending with a module | ||
| 2013-04-12 13:08 <giedrius> cedk: i understand, but this case is on the thin edge between general FIFO stock managmenet and the specify case | ||
| 2013-04-12 13:08 <giedrius> specific* | ||
| 2013-04-12 13:10 <giedrius> cedk: let's leave this issue for now, i need to do more testing and talk with accountant to be more sure on what i talk :-) | ||
| 2013-04-12 13:11 <cedk> giedrius: any way, it will be good to describe it on the bugtracker with the possible solution | ||
| 2013-04-12 13:12 <giedrius> cedk: sure, when i get more clear mind, i'll do | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:09 <giedrius> cedk: do i need to create a patch from a review to make this changes commited to hg repository, or do you do it yourself? | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:10 <cedk> giedrius: yes see the wiki about contribution | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:11 <giedrius> cedk: i see the wiki, but it is not descriptive enough | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:13 <giedrius> cedk: but i guess i need to submit hg patch | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:16 <cedk> giedrius: yes | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:24 <cedk> giedrius: but you should wait for my fix to be first commited | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:34 <giedrius> cedk: is it not possible to apply patch on top of other commits in hg? | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:35 <cedk> giedrius: not if you make the commit before | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:35 <cedk> giedrius: or I will applied it as a new patch and your clone will diverge | ||
| 2013-04-12 15:36 <giedrius> cedk: you can apply it like that, not a problem for me to re-clone | ||
| 2013-04-12 16:16 -!- sisalp(~dominique@annecy.sisalp.net) has left #tryton | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:02 <coeps> Hi, I try since hours, to get a report generated and opened office. It shall have the same behavior as using the Icon in the top row (open report). I do not achieve my goal yet. Is it possible at all? | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:03 <coeps> the report should be opened when I press a button (or even better when the state changes a button is attached to) | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:04 <coeps> Can I force the client to send the same request to the server on button-click as when I click report open? | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:07 <cedk> coeps: yes you can have a button returning a ir.action.report | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:09 <coeps> cdek: I tried with <button type="action" name="id_of_my_xml_action". Is that the correct approach? | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:10 <cedk> coeps: button doesn't have anymore type | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:10 <cedk> coeps: they are all linked to a method | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:10 <coeps> I will file a but for the docu- its still in there for 2.6 | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:11 <cedk> coeps: already fixed in changeset:aa9cd20db0b5 | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:12 <coeps> cdek: can you think about an example where a report is opened by using a method? | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:14 <cedk> coeps: http://trytond.readthedocs.org/en/2.6.0/topics/views/index.html#button | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:16 <cedk> oops readthedocs doesn't follow the branches | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:17 <cedk> coeps: a report I don't know but some run a wizard which is not very different | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:24 <cedk> coeps: http://hg.tryton.org/modules/stock/file/deeed9b5cc04/shipment.py#l679 | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:34 <coeps> cdek: Grrrr. I tried last night the same but got errors. in account_invoice the id is "account_invoice.wizard_pay" with an underscore. The xml ID only is called wizard.pay. Why is there an underscore in account_invoice, when it normaly is used with a dot (like account.invoice)? Thanks for your time | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:35 <coeps> It works now, I forgot to mention that :) | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:48 <coeps> cdek: Thanks again, this button-action tip saved my day. | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:48 <cedk> coeps: module name can not have '.' | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:49 <coeps> cdek: omg forget the question sorry. | ||
| 2013-04-12 17:49 <coeps> coeps: its clear now | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:00 <_droid> hi people, I have a question about the tryton tutorial. I'm new to python also, so excuse little knowledge. At the second step, the last line of code says: "Hello()". What does this line mean? | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:01 <cedk> _droid: it is the old fashion to register class into the Pool | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:02 <cedk> _droid: by the way, I find the training module better to learn: http://hg.tryton.org/2.6/ | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:04 <_droid> cedk: thank you for the link. could you elaborate on what you mean with pool? I come from the Object Oriented Programming (java, pretty mainstream). | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:05 <cedk> _droid: the pool is where the classes are stored | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:05 <cedk> _droid: each module will replace an class of the pool and replace it by his own that dynamicaly will inherit of the previous one | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:06 <cedk> _droid: like that we have classes that are constructed by modules | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:06 <_droid> cedk: is not the constructor? Is it when you enter it in the python console directly you get a hex address where it is stored in memory? | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:10 <cedk> _droid: no it is a Tryton specific design | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:25 <ozmeister> cedk: Just saw the recommendation you made to _droid about the training module. is it intended to be a training module for module creators? Thanks. | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:26 <cedk> ozmeister: yes | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:26 <_droid> cedk: ok, about that link, can't make anything of it. Could you elaborate | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:28 <cedk> _droid: instructions are in the description of the repository | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:31 <ozmeister> cedk: Thanks. I'm looking at 'party_extend'. Is that the recommended way to extend a model? By importing and adding the new fields under the class statement? | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:32 <cedk> ozmeister: don't know the module | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:32 <ozmeister> cedk: ok | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:37 <ozmeister> cedk: I've setup a tryton dev environment to hack on GNU Health. if I make code changes on an already-installed module, do I have to remove it, update the db, then reinstall? | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:40 <coeps> ozmeister: I have no experience with gnu health but usually: only update the db with -u <module> flag: see here: http://code.google.com/p/tryton/wiki/Update | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:41 <ozmeister> cedk: just found that page. Thanks :) | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:43 <ozmeister> cedk: generally speaking, for tryton modules, after updating the db, do you need to mark for upgrade then launch pending actions in the modules section of the tryton client? | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:46 <cedk> ozmeister: yes | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:47 <ozmeister> cedk: Thanks for all your help, Cedric | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:48 <cedk> ozmeister: or you can use the cmd line | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:50 <ozmeister> cedk: via proteus? | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:50 <cedk> ozmeister: no cmd line | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:50 <cedk> ozmeister: see trytond --help | ||
| 2013-04-12 18:52 <ozmeister> cedk: I see | ||
| 2013-04-12 19:23 -!- rpit(~ralf@dslb-088-071-225-174.pools.arcor-ip.net) has left #tryton |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!