IRC logs of #tryton for Friday, 2009-01-16 #tryton log beginning Fri Jan 16 00:00:02 CET 2009
2009-01-16 00:00 <vengfulsquirrel> For example the color/size stuff does not make sense to me.
2009-01-16 00:00 <X0d_of_N0d> well...
2009-01-16 00:00 <X0d_of_N0d> there are a acouple of options here
2009-01-16 00:01 <X0d_of_N0d> the accounting system we're currently using has "configurable" boms and "variable" boms
2009-01-16 00:02 <X0d_of_N0d> configurable boms are like we said, variable boms are boms where there's only one item, but the amount of that item is determined at time of order
2009-01-16 00:03 <X0d_of_N0d> however if we just had a regular bom line that included part and quantity one could simply put in the same item multiple times with different quantities to get the same effect as a "variable" bom
2009-01-16 00:03 <vengfulsquirrel> Right
2009-01-16 00:03 <X0d_of_N0d> as far as color goes, we could assume that the same item in a different color would have a different part number
2009-01-16 00:03 <carlos> cedk: would be possible that you share the hgweb.config file you use for ?
2009-01-16 00:05 <X0d_of_N0d> of course, the question becomes how we store configurations
2009-01-16 00:06 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah well where to store them is question one I guess, purchase orders, sales, and production runs?
2009-01-16 00:07 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 00:07 <X0d_of_N0d> ok....hum....
2009-01-16 00:09 <X0d_of_N0d> When a purchase order gets created, that would triger the configuration
2009-01-16 00:09 <X0d_of_N0d> it has to be configured before a purchase order can be actually entered into the system
2009-01-16 00:10 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah but you would only need to configure the product when you added it while filling in the purchase order.
2009-01-16 00:10 <X0d_of_N0d> that would be the proper workflow
2009-01-16 00:13 <X0d_of_N0d> So where in sales do you think it could be stored?
2009-01-16 00:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah seems like the model could be stored outside of the actual order line in all those cases and the configurator would just know how to fill the order line correctly.
2009-01-16 00:13 <vengfulsquirrel> So there would be some recursive structure but the order itself wouldn't really need to know about it because its order line would be filled correctly.
2009-01-16 00:14 <X0d_of_N0d> perhaps
2009-01-16 00:14 <X0d_of_N0d> but why not just store it there?
2009-01-16 00:14 <vengfulsquirrel> As a rollup of order lines?
2009-01-16 00:15 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 00:15 <vengfulsquirrel> Well we'd have to face-lift the entire view/print/storage process for sales and purchases.
2009-01-16 00:16 <vengfulsquirrel> I am not familiar with the existing design though so I'll have to look into that.
2009-01-16 00:17 <X0d_of_N0d> we'd need a configure button to appear for configurable boms, and we'd need to add a field to the db for configuration
2009-01-16 00:18 <X0d_of_N0d> and we'd need to store the rev aswell
2009-01-16 00:19 <vengfulsquirrel> The revision of the configurable bom ?
2009-01-16 00:19 <X0d_of_N0d> yes
2009-01-16 00:20 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION stops for a sec...
2009-01-16 00:20 <X0d_of_N0d> sales order, not purchase order.... it would be configured when it's sold
2009-01-16 00:20 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 00:21 <vengfulsquirrel> oh i figured you'd need to do both.. when you asked a supplier for something you might have to configure what you want to buy.. does that never happen ?
2009-01-16 00:22 <X0d_of_N0d> no, that's their problem
2009-01-16 00:22 <X0d_of_N0d> you just enter a new part number for each different configuration
2009-01-16 00:24 <vengfulsquirrel> so would you not need to configure a product for production either? the only configuration happens at sale time?
2009-01-16 00:24 <X0d_of_N0d> for what we're doing I don't think we need to worry about that now
2009-01-16 00:25 <X0d_of_N0d> I can think of cases where you might want to be able to configure something during production, but for what we're doing we don't care right now
2009-01-16 00:25 <X0d_of_N0d> so, yeah, the only time you need to configure something is when you sell it
2009-01-16 00:30 <vengfulsquirrel> okay
2009-01-16 00:30 <vengfulsquirrel> great
2009-01-16 00:30 <vengfulsquirrel> So now routings/workcenters and scheduling.
2009-01-16 00:30 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 00:31 <vengfulsquirrel> I had planned to allocate the materials at the start of the route and then the finished product would pop out at the end is that do heavy handed?
2009-01-16 00:31 <vengfulsquirrel> Will resources not need to show up until half-way through the route?
2009-01-16 00:32 <vengfulsquirrel> *too heavy handed
2009-01-16 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> well...
2009-01-16 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> there are two types of allocation
2009-01-16 00:32 <vengfulsquirrel> Sorry I'm talking specifically about materials/products/subassemblies whatever is pulled from stock and used in one giving routing.
2009-01-16 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> there's real allocation (it's not there anymore at all) and virtual allocation (it's there, but we're gonna use it so don't plan on using it for anything else)
2009-01-16 00:34 <X0d_of_N0d> when a sales order becomes a production order all the stock needed for everything should be virtually allocated, then at each step as the work order is opened the stock should then be allocated
2009-01-16 00:35 <vengfulsquirrel> hmm okay well i had planned on having a production run use moves to get the production materials out of Storage and into the Production Input Zone.
2009-01-16 00:36 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, that sounds good
2009-01-16 00:36 <vengfulsquirrel> So you could physically or virtually do that, I guess it doesn't matte.r
2009-01-16 00:36 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 00:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Then you move things 'into' production when it starts and out if it stops.. and when its done the materials are just in production and your finished products come out into the Production Output Zone.
2009-01-16 00:37 <X0d_of_N0d> except that it would move things out of storage so it would be harder to keep track of the items
2009-01-16 00:38 <X0d_of_N0d> you had a chart of this, didn't you?
2009-01-16 00:39 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I was trying to find it.
2009-01-16 00:39 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 00:40 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-01-16 00:41 <X0d_of_N0d> brb
2009-01-16 00:44 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah Input and Output should probably be children of production.
2009-01-16 00:45 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 00:47 <vengfulsquirrel> i wanted a sink for materials though and a source for finished products
2009-01-16 00:48 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 00:48 <X0d_of_N0d> well, shouldn't that be lost & found?
2009-01-16 00:49 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I guess maybe I misunderstand what lost and found was for, ha and took it too literally.
2009-01-16 00:50 <vengfulsquirrel> Is this too ridiculous? I updated it so you might have to refresh.
2009-01-16 00:51 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah actually that's kind of annoying in the same way except now its shop floor that is pooling up past materials and finished products.
2009-01-16 00:53 <vengfulsquirrel> Well I'll keep thinking but yeah something like Assign->Schedule->Start->Done With options to Cancel and Stop for a Production Run.
2009-01-16 00:55 <vengfulsquirrel> *Draft->Assign
2009-01-16 00:57 <X0d_of_N0d> where the resources are allocated should be defined in the route or something similar
2009-01-16 00:58 <carlos> ikks: hi, around?
2009-01-16 00:58 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I guess Assign would pull stock from storage, but Schedule would do resource/workcenter assignment based on the routings.
2009-01-16 00:59 <X0d_of_N0d> the schedule should create a move order, then when work actually begins the move order gets fulfilled
2009-01-16 01:01 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm do draft Moves block products from being assigned elsewherE/
2009-01-16 01:01 <vengfulsquirrel> *?
2009-01-16 01:03 <X0d_of_N0d> or rather, do draft moves block products from being assigned elsewhere?
2009-01-16 01:03 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: no
2009-01-16 01:04 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 01:04 <vengfulsquirrel> So the move must be done before work can start to guaranteee the product can be assigned.
2009-01-16 01:04 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: or assigned
2009-01-16 01:05 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay yeah great that works as I had planned then.
2009-01-16 01:06 <vengfulsquirrel> Except we'd probably use an internal packing with a bunch of moves and it all would get assigned before work could start and then it would change to Done once work started.
2009-01-16 01:07 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I think that all that moves must be handle by a kind of production object (not the internal packing)
2009-01-16 01:08 <vengfulsquirrel> Oh okay, noted.
2009-01-16 01:08 <X0d_of_N0d> what about just adding a field to inventory to signify how much is allocated
2009-01-16 01:08 <X0d_of_N0d> ?
2009-01-16 01:09 <vengfulsquirrel> That's what moves are I thought.
2009-01-16 01:09 <vengfulsquirrel> Except much more convenient.
2009-01-16 01:10 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: but I think it must also have a kind of meta-model that display all moves collapsed for today production
2009-01-16 01:10 <X0d_of_N0d> the problem with moving stuff is that it doesn't *actually* move... so it makes things confusing
2009-01-16 01:10 <cedk> for today or for any other time base for production (hours, week, etc...)
2009-01-16 01:11 <vengfulsquirrel> Well you could build that based on production runs finished during any time range if the moves are stored per production run.
2009-01-16 01:11 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: What do you mean they don't actually move?
2009-01-16 01:12 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: as the stock is double entry, you must create move to change stock quantity
2009-01-16 01:12 <X0d_of_N0d> you assign something to production by moving it into a production area...
2009-01-16 01:12 <vengfulsquirrel> No assign just says I'm going to move this... don't move it.
2009-01-16 01:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Done means I moved it, its not there anymore.
2009-01-16 01:13 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: but I think that you will prepare products for a set of production
2009-01-16 01:14 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Right like pull all the production materials in the morning to satisfy all production runs for that day?
2009-01-16 01:15 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes, but for the all day, you can have many production order, so you will have many little move and I think it is better to collapse all those moves
2009-01-16 01:16 <vengfulsquirrel> Ha oh I see what you mean by collapse, I thought you meant some sort of gui construct.
2009-01-16 01:16 <cedk> it is just some thoughts
2009-01-16 01:18 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Is there any functionality regarding consolidating moves like that in tryton right now ?
2009-01-16 01:18 <vengfulsquirrel> It might confuse the system if 10 production runs point to the same move which overcompensates for their quantity.
2009-01-16 01:18 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: no
2009-01-16 01:19 <cedk> but now, I readed the MPC on wiki
2009-01-16 01:20 <cedk> and I think that if we work with period perhaps what I said is no more right
2009-01-16 01:20 <vengfulsquirrel> MPC?
2009-01-16 01:21 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: is there one MPC per production line?
2009-01-16 01:21 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: Master Production Calendar
2009-01-16 01:21 <vengfulsquirrel> Ha oh great my names are killing me.
2009-01-16 01:22 <vengfulsquirrel> That is all rough, I was just trying to formulate on there, I still have to go over the double level planning with X0d to see if its even possible.
2009-01-16 01:23 <vengfulsquirrel> The calendar was just to sort of setup a structure for planning to take place in... and then it would be used to produce a rough schedule of when to produce things.. and then during each period a detailed scheduling would be created using routings.
2009-01-16 01:23 -!- bechamel(n=user@ has left #tryton
2009-01-16 01:24 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: routings?
2009-01-16 01:26 <vengfulsquirrel> If routings were defined of course, they are a plan for a path between workcenters. If you have a set production line routings are mostly not needed or are trivial.
2009-01-16 01:28 <carlos> good night
2009-01-16 01:29 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Hey so I think the moves setup is flexible and can be solved later.
2009-01-16 01:30 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 01:30 <X0d_of_N0d> so what do we have left?
2009-01-16 01:31 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Capacity, Routing definition, Workcetner definition, how scheduling works for routings ... how that fits into the overall master schedule... and then how that all is updated when s*** hits the fan.
2009-01-16 01:32 <vengfulsquirrel> So just like 95% more stuff.
2009-01-16 01:32 <X0d_of_N0d> lol
2009-01-16 01:32 <X0d_of_N0d> capacity is part of scheduling, we should talk about anything related to scheduling last
2009-01-16 01:33 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 01:33 <vengfulsquirrel> Well routing definition, workcenter definition exist purely for scheduling.
2009-01-16 01:33 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 01:33 <X0d_of_N0d> hum..
2009-01-16 01:33 <X0d_of_N0d> well routing relies on workcenters so lets talk about those
2009-01-16 01:34 <cedk> scheduling is for MRPII, no ?
2009-01-16 01:35 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah routing/workcenters are for mrp II but I have to make sure MRP I doesn't have to be rewritten for MRP II. And even with MRP I some sort of basic scheduling functionality must exist for MPR I.
2009-01-16 01:35 <X0d_of_N0d> MRP, MRP II... the more I read the less I think anyone knows
2009-01-16 01:36 <X0d_of_N0d> MRP needs to be able to schedule purchase orders to make sure materials exist
2009-01-16 01:37 <vengfulsquirrel> right and schedule production runs for a similar reason
2009-01-16 01:37 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 01:37 <vengfulsquirrel> but without routings and workcenters that is all pretty straight forward because the scheduling is pretty rough
2009-01-16 01:37 <cedk> yes but MRP I consider that you have infinite capacity
2009-01-16 01:37 <vengfulsquirrel> yes it only takes time into account
2009-01-16 01:37 <vengfulsquirrel> and usually rough buffered time
2009-01-16 01:39 <cedk> I think that MRPI must schedule at last time and with MRPII we delay depending of the capacity
2009-01-16 01:40 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: For routings you need operations and each operation needs some set of resources, some set of workers, a workcenter or a group of workcenters(which one wc is selected from), a setup time(optional), a run time and a cleanup time(optional). I am not sure how to handle the complexity of operations shared between routings or if one operation should happen on more than 1 workcenter.
2009-01-16 01:40 <X0d_of_N0d> MRP I says "you need to make this", MRP II says "you need to make this, and you should make it on these work centers at this time"
2009-01-16 01:42 <X0d_of_N0d> keeping track of workers isn't something I've seen in other mrp packages. It could be useful but usually they're ignored
2009-01-16 01:42 <X0d_of_N0d> I think we can safely ignore workers as a resource at the moment
2009-01-16 01:43 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I think that it is too difficult to write a program that plannify correctly everythings, I think you must allow to over schedule and let the user to handle this issue
2009-01-16 01:44 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: I disagree, but I do think this should be looked at later rather than now
2009-01-16 01:44 <X0d_of_N0d> so lets see....
2009-01-16 01:44 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Well with two levels of scheduling it would be less hard, but we could make the scheduling kind of pluggable.
2009-01-16 01:44 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: for me it is a NP-complete problem
2009-01-16 01:45 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: it is, but you don't have to be perfect... just close
2009-01-16 01:46 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: that is what I try to say, the system must allow to break some rules, like allocating more ressources
2009-01-16 01:46 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: and when it does it brings up an error and asks the user to take care of it
2009-01-16 01:47 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I find that two levels make stuff more complicated (and in Tryton we like simple things)
2009-01-16 01:47 <vengfulsquirrel> Until I have a better idea I had planned to do basic MRP I scheduling across a year for each period. Then within each period capacity scheduling could be done based on the production orders, where you could of course do things like force-schedule and override capacity constraints.
2009-01-16 01:47 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: not an error a warning :-)
2009-01-16 01:48 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: indeed
2009-01-16 01:48 <vengfulsquirrel> Does my two-level scheduling plan make sense?
2009-01-16 01:49 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: don't understand very well
2009-01-16 01:50 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: I think there are cases where the kind of fine-grained control over manufacturing would get in the way for some people
2009-01-16 01:50 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION needs to think about it a bit
2009-01-16 01:51 <vengfulsquirrel> Using product lead times and product demand for each period schedule purchase order requests and requests for production runs for each period assuming infinite capacity.
2009-01-16 01:52 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: purchase order requests are already done by the module stock_supply
2009-01-16 01:52 <vengfulsquirrel> Then within EACH period you can attempt to schedule production runs to satisfy the production requests based on capacity restraints and workcenter scheduling.
2009-01-16 01:53 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: did you look how we handle the purchase request in stock_supply
2009-01-16 01:53 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Those are based on a fixed product amount though right?
2009-01-16 01:54 <cedk> we don't work with fixed periods
2009-01-16 01:54 <vengfulsquirrel> Like if you go below 100 units order more.
2009-01-16 01:54 <vengfulsquirrel> I looked at it a few weeks ago but not in specific detail.
2009-01-16 01:54 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes but it is more the way to catch when you must purchase new products
2009-01-16 01:55 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: we look for a period bewteen the ealier delevery date and the next one
2009-01-16 01:55 <cedk> and I think that production can be schedule in the same way
2009-01-16 01:56 <cedk> based on a floating period depending of the production time and some other factors
2009-01-16 01:56 <X0d_of_N0d> you calc lead time based on history?
2009-01-16 01:56 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: no it define on the product (product supplier)
2009-01-16 01:56 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 01:57 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: is there any plan for pricelist capability so this can be done on a per supplier/per product level?
2009-01-16 01:57 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: but it is possible to create a module that analysie history and compute the lead time for each supplier
2009-01-16 01:57 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: lead time is alread by supplier and quantity
2009-01-16 01:58 <cedk> for price list, the hook are there, so you can write a module that match your needs
2009-01-16 01:58 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 01:58 <cedk> but for now, we don't like the pricelist from OpenERP because it tries to implement every things
2009-01-16 01:59 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 01:59 <cedk> and we think it is better to have simple stuff on which you plug module to extend it
2009-01-16 01:59 <X0d_of_N0d> so where are lead times defined in the ui?
2009-01-16 02:01 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: on the product, Suppliers tabs
2009-01-16 02:01 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: and you have delivery time per suppliers
2009-01-16 02:02 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: sorry it is not by quantity
2009-01-16 02:02 <cedk> the price is linked to the quantity but not the delivery time
2009-01-16 02:02 <X0d_of_N0d> hum... what module needs to be installed to get that? I don't have a supplier's tab
2009-01-16 02:03 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: purchase
2009-01-16 02:03 <cedk> and the product must be purchasable :-)
2009-01-16 02:04 <X0d_of_N0d> oh
2009-01-16 02:04 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 02:04 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 02:04 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: did you already start the model design?
2009-01-16 02:05 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: just out of curisity, do you know if tinyerp has per product/per supplier lead times?
2009-01-16 02:06 <cedk> by the way, as you are native english speakers, don't hesitate to correct us
2009-01-16 02:06 <vengfulsquirrel> I haven't written any code for it yet no or any usable model diagram I guess. I've just been trying to make a long term plan.
2009-01-16 02:07 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: I don't think
2009-01-16 02:07 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: do you think it is needed
2009-01-16 02:08 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: ok
2009-01-16 02:08 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: it's a big thing here
2009-01-16 02:09 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: I think it can be customized
2009-01-16 02:10 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: there is two function in trytond/modules/purchase/ on purchase.product_supplier
2009-01-16 02:10 <cedk> the functions: compute_supply_date and compute_purchase_date
2009-01-16 02:10 <cedk> so you can override it to compute like you want
2009-01-16 02:11 <X0d_of_N0d> brb
2009-01-16 02:11 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: I have made a module (not yet public) that allow to define the week day of delivery
2009-01-16 02:13 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: but for quantity, I think we must change some part of the base code
2009-01-16 02:13 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: could you submit a issue on roundup for that?
2009-01-16 02:15 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: I will put it on the TODO list of pruchase
2009-01-16 02:17 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 212:9a3809e9cfcb purchase/TODO: Add todo for delivery_time
2009-01-16 02:17 <cedk> good night
2009-01-16 02:17 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: good night, ttyl
2009-01-16 02:21 <X0d_of_N0d> hum damn, he left before I had a chance to tell him that it looks like tryton already has the functionality we need as far as lead times go
2009-01-16 02:23 <X0d_of_N0d> so the stock module might take care of orders then?
2009-01-16 02:24 <vengfulsquirrel> Well I'm not sure if I understood him correctly I was just looking at it but I think it just works based on a fixed quantity.
2009-01-16 02:24 <X0d_of_N0d> so quantity sinks below a set level and it triggers an order
2009-01-16 02:25 <X0d_of_N0d> but we want orders based on demand
2009-01-16 02:25 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah, fluctuating demand
2009-01-16 02:26 <vengfulsquirrel> and it needs to be computed sometimes from a hiearchy of lead times based on individual products
2009-01-16 02:26 <X0d_of_N0d> but that is sort of external to everything... I mean, that can be added to the code later without us thinking about it now
2009-01-16 02:26 <vengfulsquirrel> I wonder what happens with multiple suppliers
2009-01-16 02:26 <X0d_of_N0d> there would always be a default supplier
2009-01-16 02:27 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah ha you keep saying that but all the planning information must be available and that depends on how the data is structured.
2009-01-16 02:27 <vengfulsquirrel> Sorry but with different lead times, but yeah having a single default supplier would solve that.
2009-01-16 02:28 <vengfulsquirrel> And also for the transition to happen from phase one to phase two we need to know how those two planning schemes would mesh.
2009-01-16 02:28 <X0d_of_N0d> demand is in closed sales orders
2009-01-16 02:29 <X0d_of_N0d> rather, predicted demand would be in historical sales orders and existing demand would be in open sales orders
2009-01-16 02:29 <X0d_of_N0d> whatever
2009-01-16 02:29 <X0d_of_N0d> so that's already taken care of for us
2009-01-16 02:29 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah setting the demand is the easy part, as far as I'm concerned.
2009-01-16 02:30 <X0d_of_N0d> but if demand is outside our module, then we don't have to worry about it right now
2009-01-16 02:31 <X0d_of_N0d> What we need, first, is to be able to create a sales order and have it pull all the stuff from stock based on the bom structure
2009-01-16 02:31 <X0d_of_N0d> and create the work orders, etc...
2009-01-16 02:31 <X0d_of_N0d> that's basic functionality
2009-01-16 02:33 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah in a make to order scenario
2009-01-16 02:34 <X0d_of_N0d> right, don't worry about workcenters or scheduling or anything... just worry about making sure the bom structure is right so the right stuff gets pulled from stock
2009-01-16 02:34 <vengfulsquirrel> Ha I've been talking about make-to-stock this entire time.
2009-01-16 02:35 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 02:35 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay yeah so that's fine we already talked about the bom that just needs to be passed on to a production request
2009-01-16 02:35 <X0d_of_N0d> I think we can gain a lot by breaking this up into very small manageable pieces...
2009-01-16 02:36 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 02:37 <X0d_of_N0d> so the first thing to do is just implement the bom structure we talked about and tie it to sales and stock
2009-01-16 02:37 <X0d_of_N0d> perhaps now would be a good time to figure out the roadmap?
2009-01-16 02:38 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah okay we can do that
2009-01-16 02:39 <X0d_of_N0d> I've got the wiki open for editing
2009-01-16 02:39 <X0d_of_N0d> ok... so 1 is easy
2009-01-16 02:39 <X0d_of_N0d> "implement bom structure and tie it to inventory and sales"
2009-01-16 02:39 <X0d_of_N0d> right?
2009-01-16 02:40 <vengfulsquirrel> so high level
2009-01-16 02:40 <X0d_of_N0d> you think it should be broken down more?
2009-01-16 02:40 <vengfulsquirrel> Implement configurable(local and global substitutes), phantom and recursive bom structures.
2009-01-16 02:41 <X0d_of_N0d> 2) allow configuration through sales interface
2009-01-16 02:41 <X0d_of_N0d> s/\(sales\)/\1 order/
2009-01-16 02:42 <X0d_of_N0d> ?
2009-01-16 02:42 <vengfulsquirrel> I think its actually called sales.
2009-01-16 02:42 <vengfulsquirrel> That's fine.
2009-01-16 02:43 <X0d_of_N0d> make sales orders generate production requests
2009-01-16 02:43 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 02:43 <X0d_of_N0d> we need an interface for production requests
2009-01-16 02:44 <X0d_of_N0d> so perhaps 1) create an area for the production interface
2009-01-16 02:44 <vengfulsquirrel> Well there will need to be another main menu entry for Production Management.
2009-01-16 02:44 <vengfulsquirrel> I'm not sure if that's what you mean.
2009-01-16 02:44 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, it is
2009-01-16 02:45 <X0d_of_N0d> oh, what exactly do you mean "configurable(local and global substitutes)"
2009-01-16 02:47 <vengfulsquirrel> A list of products that could be used, but it needs different constraints.
2009-01-16 02:48 <X0d_of_N0d> what's the difference between global and local substitutes?
2009-01-16 02:48 <vengfulsquirrel> Local are for the current assembly like 40/60/80 MB drive.
2009-01-16 02:48 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 02:48 <vengfulsquirrel> Global are like ACME 10ft cable or ABC 10ft cable.
2009-01-16 02:49 <vengfulsquirrel> Like anywhere every those can be used interchangeably.
2009-01-16 02:49 <vengfulsquirrel> *ever
2009-01-16 02:49 <X0d_of_N0d> implementation wise they should be the same though
2009-01-16 02:50 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm yeah global substitutes sound pretty fishy to me overall so maybe we should just drop that if its not familiar to you.
2009-01-16 02:51 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, a bom should be recursive so global and local mean the same thing essentially
2009-01-16 02:51 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I guess my examples would be the same, but for some reason they were different.
2009-01-16 02:51 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION shruggs
2009-01-16 02:51 <vengfulsquirrel> Let's go with ignoring it until further notice.
2009-01-16 02:51 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, so lets move on
2009-01-16 02:51 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay
2009-01-16 02:52 <X0d_of_N0d> so 3 was allow configuration of configurable boms in sales
2009-01-16 02:52 <X0d_of_N0d> 4) create production order tables and interface
2009-01-16 02:52 <X0d_of_N0d> ?
2009-01-16 02:53 <vengfulsquirrel> well i was calling it production run but production order is fine
2009-01-16 02:53 <vengfulsquirrel> production request-->production order
2009-01-16 02:54 <X0d_of_N0d> right, so that it's the same as everything else
2009-01-16 02:54 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah that's fine
2009-01-16 02:54 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 02:54 <vengfulsquirrel> the relationship between production order and production request are a little fishy though... like how does one connect to the other
2009-01-16 02:54 <X0d_of_N0d> "draft production"
2009-01-16 02:55 <vengfulsquirrel> ?
2009-01-16 02:55 <X0d_of_N0d> I think we should use the same terminology as is used elsewhere
2009-01-16 02:55 <X0d_of_N0d> so "draft production run"???
2009-01-16 02:55 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-16 02:56 <vengfulsquirrel> wait yeah drop run and just call it order
2009-01-16 02:56 <vengfulsquirrel> draft production order
2009-01-16 02:56 <X0d_of_N0d> "draft production order" -> "production order"
2009-01-16 02:57 <X0d_of_N0d> or rather -> "open production order" -> "completed production order"
2009-01-16 02:57 <X0d_of_N0d> whatever
2009-01-16 02:58 <vengfulsquirrel> draft, assigned, started, stopped, done, canceled
2009-01-16 02:59 <X0d_of_N0d> 4) create production order tables and interface that allows for manual production workflow through various states:
2009-01-16 02:59 <X0d_of_N0d> ?
2009-01-16 03:01 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah
2009-01-16 03:01 <X0d_of_N0d> actually it seems like that should go above the configuration of boms in sales thing
2009-01-16 03:01 <X0d_of_N0d> sound cool?
2009-01-16 03:02 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah except you can't produce configurable items until you .. configure them
2009-01-16 03:02 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 03:02 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-16 03:02 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, we'll leave it
2009-01-16 03:03 <X0d_of_N0d> but we have to be able to create boms before we can have sales orders trigger their configuration
2009-01-16 03:03 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah
2009-01-16 03:04 <X0d_of_N0d> so the logical flow seems to me to be create interface for manually running production workflow
2009-01-16 03:04 <X0d_of_N0d> then have sales orders trigger creation of draft production orders
2009-01-16 03:05 <X0d_of_N0d> then allow for configuration from sales orders
2009-01-16 03:06 <vengfulsquirrel> okay yeah wait so production requests are gone, ha i missed that earlier
2009-01-16 03:06 <vengfulsquirrel> are those only something planning would produce or are we just eliminating those completely
2009-01-16 03:07 -!- X0d_of_N0d(i=user@gateway/tor/x-5c95cd63f0af1d20) has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 03:07 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION looks around
2009-01-16 03:10 <vengfulsquirrel> So how do production requests fit into this ?
2009-01-16 03:13 <X0d_of_N0d> lemme save the wiki really quick and you can see what I've got right now
2009-01-16 03:15 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 03:15 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION toys with wiki syntax a bit
2009-01-16 03:17 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 03:18 <X0d_of_N0d> road map is at the bottom of the page
2009-01-16 03:18 <vengfulsquirrel> 6/3 should probably be the same thing
2009-01-16 03:19 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> what about putting 6 as 4
2009-01-16 03:20 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah that's fine
2009-01-16 03:21 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 03:22 <vengfulsquirrel> actually maybe 3 should become two parts and 2 should also be expanded to reflect the model design and the ui design
2009-01-16 03:22 <vengfulsquirrel> also what about versioning?
2009-01-16 03:22 <X0d_of_N0d> so should we set more goals for the roadmap or just decide to add them from here as things go?
2009-01-16 03:22 <X0d_of_N0d> hum....yeah
2009-01-16 03:23 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, so make 3 2 parts
2009-01-16 03:23 <X0d_of_N0d> ...
2009-01-16 03:23 <X0d_of_N0d> how should it be broken up you think?
2009-01-16 03:24 <X0d_of_N0d> oh yeah, nm.. I'm a little out there today
2009-01-16 03:24 <X0d_of_N0d> not enough sleep, too much beer last night, hehe
2009-01-16 03:24 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah my sleep schedule has been whack all week
2009-01-16 03:24 <vengfulsquirrel> but no beer :(
2009-01-16 03:25 <vengfulsquirrel> ha a lot of coffee though
2009-01-16 03:25 <X0d_of_N0d> I wasn't planning on really drinking last night, but I found this bourbon stout....
2009-01-16 03:25 <X0d_of_N0d> crazy
2009-01-16 03:25 <X0d_of_N0d> really good beer
2009-01-16 03:26 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, revisioning
2009-01-16 03:26 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah sounds thick
2009-01-16 03:26 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 03:26 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: yeah, really thick... and really dark
2009-01-16 03:26 <X0d_of_N0d> anyway... yeah... bom revisioning
2009-01-16 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, there are a couple of ways to do this....
2009-01-16 03:28 <X0d_of_N0d> so we're going to store production lead time in boms or in product?
2009-01-16 03:28 <X0d_of_N0d> what about storing the bom in product?
2009-01-16 03:29 <X0d_of_N0d> err... the interface in product
2009-01-16 03:30 <vengfulsquirrel> the bom interfacE?
2009-01-16 03:30 <vengfulsquirrel> you mean to create boms
2009-01-16 03:30 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah.
2009-01-16 03:30 <X0d_of_N0d> we could add a checkbox to product near sellable (salable..need to put in a ticket to fix that) and purchasable
2009-01-16 03:31 <X0d_of_N0d> just add "manufactured in house" or something
2009-01-16 03:32 <X0d_of_N0d> oh yeah...duh "makeable"
2009-01-16 03:32 <vengfulsquirrel> salable?
2009-01-16 03:32 <vengfulsquirrel> that's a word
2009-01-16 03:32 <X0d_of_N0d> if makeable is check it adds a bom tab
2009-01-16 03:33 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah or producable
2009-01-16 03:33 <X0d_of_N0d> it is
2009-01-16 03:33 <vengfulsquirrel> hmm yeah we could do that and put the lead time for production in there
2009-01-16 03:34 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 03:35 <X0d_of_N0d> and this is where we'd later put routing and bom type and all that
2009-01-16 03:36 <X0d_of_N0d> hum... bom revisions though
2009-01-16 03:37 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah that sounds good until i see a problem
2009-01-16 03:37 <vengfulsquirrel> then i can also just copy/paste the code for salable or purchasable
2009-01-16 03:37 <vengfulsquirrel> to get the fancy notebook tabs
2009-01-16 03:38 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 03:38 <X0d_of_N0d> exactly
2009-01-16 03:40 <vengfulsquirrel> The revisioning is kind of an issue though because we will definately need it later but it will be hard to add it if we aren't using it already.
2009-01-16 03:40 <vengfulsquirrel> I think a bom version should go from draft to done and then be readonly or something like that.
2009-01-16 03:41 <X0d_of_N0d> interesting sellable gets taged by firefox as being spelled wrong...hum...
2009-01-16 03:41 <X0d_of_N0d> hum, right
2009-01-16 03:41 <X0d_of_N0d> lets see...
2009-01-16 03:41 <vengfulsquirrel> Then if someone wants to make a change they have to make a new draft and move it to done etc.
2009-01-16 03:41 <vengfulsquirrel> And the rest of the system depends on a fixed bom version
2009-01-16 03:42 <X0d_of_N0d> a lot of times boms have dates on them
2009-01-16 03:42 <vengfulsquirrel> valid from/to ?
2009-01-16 03:42 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 03:42 <X0d_of_N0d> two boms for the same product cannot be valid at the same time...
2009-01-16 03:42 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah we could have that and fall back to using the most recent done version otherwise.
2009-01-16 03:42 <X0d_of_N0d> and if a bom is currently valid it cannot be changed, it has to be invalidated
2009-01-16 03:44 <vengfulsquirrel> right well it can never be changed you just have to paint over it with a new version
2009-01-16 03:44 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 03:44 <vengfulsquirrel> what if a product doesn't have any valid bom at all ?
2009-01-16 03:45 <vengfulsquirrel> also what if a product only have invalid boms?
2009-01-16 03:45 <vengfulsquirrel> *has
2009-01-16 03:45 <X0d_of_N0d> then it can't be produced
2009-01-16 03:45 <vengfulsquirrel> what if production is taking place and someone goes and invalidates all the boms?
2009-01-16 03:45 <X0d_of_N0d> it should raise a warning "there are no valid boms for this item, it cannot be produced"
2009-01-16 03:46 <X0d_of_N0d> after the production order becomes valid the bom_id becomes linked to it
2009-01-16 03:46 <X0d_of_N0d> valid or not
2009-01-16 03:46 <vengfulsquirrel> okay
2009-01-16 03:47 <vengfulsquirrel> so valid really only effects initial usage
2009-01-16 03:47 <X0d_of_N0d> that is used through production no matter what
2009-01-16 03:47 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 03:47 <X0d_of_N0d> if you want it to effect an active prodution run you have to stop the run
2009-01-16 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> well probably cancel the run and create a new one and furthermore maybe create a new sale
2009-01-16 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> if the bom used inititally was wrong
2009-01-16 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> *to configure it
2009-01-16 03:49 <X0d_of_N0d> I don't think you should have to create a new sale...
2009-01-16 03:49 <X0d_of_N0d> well, yeah, if it was a misconfigured bom then you would
2009-01-16 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> right
2009-01-16 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> but that would be one case usually you could just recreate the production order and get the new bom
2009-01-16 03:49 <X0d_of_N0d> but lets say you are in the middle of a run and you find out that widget X breaks randomly, but you fixed it with widget X-1
2009-01-16 03:50 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 03:50 <vengfulsquirrel> okay but yeah sorry earlier i asked about production requests, are those only for planning then
2009-01-16 03:50 <vengfulsquirrel> sales go straight to production orders
2009-01-16 03:51 <vengfulsquirrel> i guess a production request will kind of be a planning version of a sale
2009-01-16 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> no, sales should go to production requests... a production order needs to take place at a given time so it must be scheduled
2009-01-16 03:51 <vengfulsquirrel> okay can you explain how that would work
2009-01-16 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> well actually....
2009-01-16 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 03:52 <vengfulsquirrel> specifically how they would be related
2009-01-16 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> here's the workflow
2009-01-16 03:52 <vengfulsquirrel> since one production could technically satisfy 10 production requests
2009-01-16 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> 1) customer orders the product
2009-01-16 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 03:53 <X0d_of_N0d> and there's also also the issue that a customer might order something and you don't need a production request because you already have it in stock
2009-01-16 03:53 <X0d_of_N0d> which is actually what you want
2009-01-16 03:53 <X0d_of_N0d> or better you just finished producing what the customer ordered
2009-01-16 03:54 <X0d_of_N0d> so 1) customer orders the product
2009-01-16 03:54 <X0d_of_N0d> 2) system checks to see if the product is already in inventory or there is already something being produced that's not already sold
2009-01-16 03:55 <X0d_of_N0d> 3) if something needs to be produced then a "draft production order" is created
2009-01-16 03:57 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 03:57 <vengfulsquirrel> ?
2009-01-16 03:58 <X0d_of_N0d> well I was thinking that we'd then schedule the production order...
2009-01-16 03:58 <X0d_of_N0d> but in reality you schedule work orders
2009-01-16 03:58 <vengfulsquirrel> a production order is really the parent of many work orders as far as i can tell
2009-01-16 03:58 <vengfulsquirrel> where a work order is what each workcenter on a routing receives
2009-01-16 03:59 <X0d_of_N0d> exactly
2009-01-16 03:59 <vengfulsquirrel> for now we are scheduling the production order
2009-01-16 03:59 <vengfulsquirrel> which essentially does nothing
2009-01-16 03:59 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 03:59 <vengfulsquirrel> but in the future it would lay out the routing and pass out work orders
2009-01-16 03:59 <X0d_of_N0d> so I guess you don't schedule production orders, you just accept them and they create "draft work orders", which the user then schedules across workcenters
2009-01-16 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> well you can keep rough tracking
2009-01-16 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> think of it as every product has an indepenedent routing with a single workcenter
2009-01-16 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> ?
2009-01-16 04:01 <vengfulsquirrel> do schedule a production order would be to schedule each work order
2009-01-16 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 04:01 <vengfulsquirrel> *to schedule
2009-01-16 04:01 <vengfulsquirrel> So for now to schedule just means you are setting a time to start
2009-01-16 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> and then you start it.. and then you say its done.. and then the product is moved to production output zone
2009-01-16 04:02 <X0d_of_N0d> right, and we can make it more granular later
2009-01-16 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> so work orders don't exist right now
2009-01-16 04:02 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> i hope that will extend to your system correctly
2009-01-16 04:03 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, that's fine actually
2009-01-16 04:03 <X0d_of_N0d> bom revisions....
2009-01-16 04:03 <X0d_of_N0d> we need to figure out bom revisions
2009-01-16 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> if we make bom's readonly i don't see a problem
2009-01-16 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> with it
2009-01-16 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> i mean we can solve it somehow
2009-01-16 04:04 <X0d_of_N0d> how do we store them?
2009-01-16 04:04 <vengfulsquirrel> that's the only tihng that would seriuosly f' us
2009-01-16 04:04 <vengfulsquirrel> the revisions? just copy the entire previuos bom into a Draft Bom with a new version number
2009-01-16 04:05 <X0d_of_N0d> so for each rev we just store another copy of the bom in the db?
2009-01-16 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah
2009-01-16 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> but they are single level
2009-01-16 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> *minus phantoms
2009-01-16 04:05 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> so multiple-level-ish
2009-01-16 04:05 <X0d_of_N0d> ehhh
2009-01-16 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> but like each sub-assmelby that is stocked has its own bom
2009-01-16 04:06 <X0d_of_N0d> I think they can all be single level
2009-01-16 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> and revisions
2009-01-16 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> oh yeah phantom sub assemblies i guess could be seperate
2009-01-16 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> we have to figure out where to make those
2009-01-16 04:07 <X0d_of_N0d> so the layout is like "bom_id, product_id, rev, type, lines"
2009-01-16 04:08 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah i don't know i need to read up on postgres sequences
2009-01-16 04:08 <X0d_of_N0d> I think phantoms would be different in the product area.
2009-01-16 04:08 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah maybe you have to make them in the production management section
2009-01-16 04:09 <X0d_of_N0d> why not give them a part number? make them just the same as everything else except that they're phantom boms?
2009-01-16 04:10 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: yeah maybe I have to look into it, you are right though it would need to share some properties which would make it hard to make it seperate
2009-01-16 04:10 <X0d_of_N0d> unstockable phantom boms could just have a product type that's like "unstockable" or something
2009-01-16 04:10 <vengfulsquirrel> they have consumables
2009-01-16 04:10 <X0d_of_N0d> that could work
2009-01-16 04:10 <vengfulsquirrel> i'm not sure quite what those are for but maybe yeah we could use that or if it comes to it make another type
2009-01-16 04:11 <X0d_of_N0d> exactly
2009-01-16 04:11 <vengfulsquirrel> okay though
2009-01-16 04:12 <vengfulsquirrel> so all single level
2009-01-16 04:12 <vengfulsquirrel> i can't imagine that is really going to be a big problem of storage
2009-01-16 04:12 <vengfulsquirrel> copying everything over and over
2009-01-16 04:12 <vengfulsquirrel> its just bom lines and a bom container
2009-01-16 04:12 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 04:12 <X0d_of_N0d> it's not really a lot of text or anything
2009-01-16 04:13 <X0d_of_N0d> if it's a problem in the long term we can reorganize it. I think the structure is simple enough that it wouldn't be a problem to do that
2009-01-16 04:15 <vengfulsquirrel> So anyways can we go back to the process again
2009-01-16 04:15 <vengfulsquirrel> i still don't understand the request part
2009-01-16 04:15 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, where were we?
2009-01-16 04:15 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-16 04:15 <CIA-10> tryton: * r417 /wiki/ Edited wiki page through web user interface.
2009-01-16 04:16 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION looks at CIA-10
2009-01-16 04:16 <vengfulsquirrel> 1 customer sale, 2 fulfill from inventory or fulfill from production 3 create draft production order (requests?)
2009-01-16 04:16 <X0d_of_N0d> that's some serious lag
2009-01-16 04:16 <vengfulsquirrel> ha yeah there is a lot of lag
2009-01-16 04:16 <X0d_of_N0d> ok 4) schedule (activate) the order
2009-01-16 04:17 <X0d_of_N0d> a user would activate the order so it can be scheduled in an efficient way rather than having the computer schedule everything at the wrong time or whatever
2009-01-16 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> okay well i kind of feel like maybe the user should decide to fulfill from stock version schedule a production request
2009-01-16 04:18 <X0d_of_N0d> hum... so scheduling would actually be "assign" in the terminology
2009-01-16 04:19 <X0d_of_N0d> when the order is assigned then virtual stock would be allocated, when the order is run then that stock would actually be moved into the bit /dev/null or whatever
2009-01-16 04:20 <X0d_of_N0d> and the product would be pulled out of lost & found and put into "production output"
2009-01-16 04:20 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah i kind of feel like that is abusing lost and found, but something like that
2009-01-16 04:21 <vengfulsquirrel> i think it actually would be pulled out of the production location
2009-01-16 04:21 <vengfulsquirrel> and put into production output
2009-01-16 04:21 <vengfulsquirrel> or the shop floor
2009-01-16 04:21 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 04:21 <X0d_of_N0d> perhaps there could be a production bucket
2009-01-16 04:21 <X0d_of_N0d> s/bucket/account/ I guess
2009-01-16 04:22 <X0d_of_N0d> you'd have a "used materials" account that stuff would get dumped into
2009-01-16 04:22 <X0d_of_N0d> what is the lost and found for?
2009-01-16 04:22 <X0d_of_N0d> if it's not for that I mean?
2009-01-16 04:23 <vengfulsquirrel> well I don't know but I interpretted it as for when people make mistakes and literally are losing inventory and finding inventory... its like a mistake collector
2009-01-16 04:23 <vengfulsquirrel> if your numbers are high in there it means your inventory tracking sucks
2009-01-16 04:23 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, then we should't use it
2009-01-16 04:24 <vengfulsquirrel> well that was my interpretation i gotta ask cedk or bechamel
2009-01-16 04:24 <X0d_of_N0d> isn't there an "inventory loss" account?
2009-01-16 04:24 <vengfulsquirrel> a financial account ?
2009-01-16 04:24 <X0d_of_N0d> no a location
2009-01-16 04:25 <X0d_of_N0d> i meant
2009-01-16 04:25 <vengfulsquirrel> i added a mod to do that
2009-01-16 04:25 <vengfulsquirrel> for my own purposes
2009-01-16 04:25 <vengfulsquirrel> maybe you saw that in an old diagram
2009-01-16 04:25 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm pretty sure that's how tinyerp does it
2009-01-16 04:25 <vengfulsquirrel> pushes it all into lost and foudn ?
2009-01-16 04:26 <X0d_of_N0d> no, there's an inventory loss
2009-01-16 04:26 <X0d_of_N0d> manufactured products come out of inventory loss
2009-01-16 04:26 <vengfulsquirrel> oh right for when stuff actually is broken
2009-01-16 04:26 <vengfulsquirrel> ha oh man
2009-01-16 04:26 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah that's what i don't want to do
2009-01-16 04:26 <X0d_of_N0d> I dunno
2009-01-16 04:26 <vengfulsquirrel> but maybe i'm wrong
2009-01-16 04:27 <vengfulsquirrel> anyways
2009-01-16 04:27 <X0d_of_N0d> so you're thinking about pulling them out of the shop floor?
2009-01-16 04:27 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah and the numbers actually on the shop floor mean nothing
2009-01-16 04:27 <vengfulsquirrel> the only numbers that mean anything are the input zone and the output zone
2009-01-16 04:27 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 04:28 <vengfulsquirrel> What do you think ?
2009-01-16 04:28 <X0d_of_N0d> it seems like the place where products come from and where materials go should be different
2009-01-16 04:29 <X0d_of_N0d> because you might want to run a report that finds out everything you used in production and you could use your "used materials" location for that
2009-01-16 04:29 <X0d_of_N0d> likewise you might want to know how many products you made, and you could use your "production something whatever" to generate that
2009-01-16 04:29 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah okay so maybe it should be disconnected
2009-01-16 04:30 <vengfulsquirrel> consumed, produced
2009-01-16 04:30 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 04:30 <vengfulsquirrel> kind of like customer, supplier
2009-01-16 04:30 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 04:30 <vengfulsquirrel> a lot of moves i guess
2009-01-16 04:30 <vengfulsquirrel> storage->input->consumed produced->output->storage
2009-01-16 04:31 <X0d_of_N0d> I think that's fine
2009-01-16 04:31 <vengfulsquirrel> so the shop floor will be split in two
2009-01-16 04:31 <vengfulsquirrel> in that diagram
2009-01-16 04:31 <X0d_of_N0d> well...
2009-01-16 04:31 <vengfulsquirrel> and not named shop floor
2009-01-16 04:32 <vengfulsquirrel> ha
2009-01-16 04:32 <X0d_of_N0d> maybe there should be a "shop floor" just for inventory tracking... but I guess we can drop it for now
2009-01-16 04:34 -!- gremly(n=oscar@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 04:34 <X0d_of_N0d> brb
2009-01-16 04:35 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d:
2009-01-16 04:38 <X0d_of_N0d> did you update it?
2009-01-16 04:39 <X0d_of_N0d> ahh ok
2009-01-16 04:39 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, I like it
2009-01-16 04:39 <vengfulsquirrel> great done
2009-01-16 04:39 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 04:39 <vengfulsquirrel> until cedk hates it ha
2009-01-16 04:40 <X0d_of_N0d> hehe
2009-01-16 04:40 <X0d_of_N0d> if he has a better idea then great, we'll impliment it
2009-01-16 04:41 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 04:42 <X0d_of_N0d> so do we want to do any more on the roadmap?
2009-01-16 04:42 <X0d_of_N0d> I updated it again
2009-01-16 04:43 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah so when I say production requests I mean literally records in the db called production requests, did you think I meant programmed requests to production to create a production order ?
2009-01-16 04:43 <X0d_of_N0d> no
2009-01-16 04:44 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm with you on that
2009-01-16 04:44 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay those aren't mentioned on the road map
2009-01-16 04:44 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, lemme get that
2009-01-16 04:45 <X0d_of_N0d> at the end?
2009-01-16 04:45 <X0d_of_N0d> err nm
2009-01-16 04:45 <vengfulsquirrel> have sales orders trigger creation of draft production orders
2009-01-16 04:45 <vengfulsquirrel> that just skips of production requests
2009-01-16 04:45 <X0d_of_N0d> draft production order == production request
2009-01-16 04:46 <vengfulsquirrel> ha okay and there is the confusion
2009-01-16 04:46 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, my bad...
2009-01-16 04:47 <X0d_of_N0d> the terminology of mrp, yeah...
2009-01-16 04:47 <vengfulsquirrel> so a production order can be draft but that's not the same as a draft production request
2009-01-16 04:48 <vengfulsquirrel> How does a sale know it has production requests in the queue and how does a production request know it is being fulfilled by a production order?
2009-01-16 04:48 <vengfulsquirrel> I guess many to many .. then many to many .
2009-01-16 04:48 <vengfulsquirrel> Right ?
2009-01-16 04:48 <vengfulsquirrel> Somehow we will need to tie all those together probably.
2009-01-16 04:50 <X0d_of_N0d> there wouldn't be production requests and production orders, production requests are just another term for draft production order
2009-01-16 04:51 <vengfulsquirrel> okay the only problem with that is if we every do planning like a billion draft production orders are going to be submitted
2009-01-16 04:51 <X0d_of_N0d> production orders would have a one2one field that links to a sales order if one exists
2009-01-16 04:51 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 04:52 <vengfulsquirrel> also what if you have 10 orders for 10 of something and you just want to make one production order of 100 ?
2009-01-16 04:52 <X0d_of_N0d> we'd have a draft produciton order for each thing produced... we'd probably want to have some way of collapsing them
2009-01-16 04:52 <vengfulsquirrel> can a production order have multiple products on it?
2009-01-16 04:53 <X0d_of_N0d> yes
2009-01-16 04:53 <vengfulsquirrel> oh sweet jesus
2009-01-16 04:53 <vengfulsquirrel> its a good thing we talked about this today
2009-01-16 04:53 <X0d_of_N0d> well, that's arbitrary
2009-01-16 04:53 <X0d_of_N0d> it's up to us to figure out
2009-01-16 04:53 <X0d_of_N0d> if we don't want a ton of production ordres than we need a production order that can have multiple items
2009-01-16 04:53 <vengfulsquirrel> well i think that's really confusing for production
2009-01-16 04:54 <vengfulsquirrel> or well when we do scheduling
2009-01-16 04:54 <vengfulsquirrel> that's impossible
2009-01-16 04:54 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 04:54 <vengfulsquirrel> so one product per production order
2009-01-16 04:54 <vengfulsquirrel> so a sales order might generated many production orders
2009-01-16 04:54 <vengfulsquirrel> depending on what's not in stock
2009-01-16 04:54 <vengfulsquirrel> and then those will be scheduled appropriately by production
2009-01-16 04:54 <X0d_of_N0d> the other side of it would be, what if you want to make a run of 100 do-dads based on an order of 100 do-dads
2009-01-16 04:55 <X0d_of_N0d> rather than 100 seperate runs of 1 do-dad
2009-01-16 04:55 <vengfulsquirrel> oh well there is a quantity
2009-01-16 04:55 <vengfulsquirrel> product, quantity
2009-01-16 04:55 <X0d_of_N0d> oh, you were thinking like "make product A and B"
2009-01-16 04:55 <vengfulsquirrel> i'm more worried of wanted to collapce multiple sale orders for the same product into one production order
2009-01-16 04:56 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, no. one product, one order
2009-01-16 04:56 <vengfulsquirrel> which isn't one2one
2009-01-16 04:56 <vengfulsquirrel> maybe it should be one2many
2009-01-16 04:56 <vengfulsquirrel> ?
2009-01-16 04:56 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: we should do that at some point, but I don't think we need to do that now
2009-01-16 04:56 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 04:56 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 04:57 <X0d_of_N0d> but then how do we keep track of what's what? I mean, you're running 100 items... you have a list of 50 sales orders
2009-01-16 04:57 <vengfulsquirrel> you mean whose item came out damaged?
2009-01-16 04:57 <X0d_of_N0d> do you have 50 free to add to other sales orders? or do you have 25? or does each sales order have 2 or what?
2009-01-16 04:57 <vengfulsquirrel> friendsies probably
2009-01-16 04:58 <X0d_of_N0d> that would be another question
2009-01-16 04:58 <vengfulsquirrel> oh gross
2009-01-16 04:58 <X0d_of_N0d> ?
2009-01-16 04:58 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah i don't know
2009-01-16 04:58 <X0d_of_N0d> for now it's one2one
2009-01-16 04:58 <vengfulsquirrel> you mean if you can only make 100 but someone order 77
2009-01-16 04:58 <X0d_of_N0d> we can change it later if we want
2009-01-16 04:59 <vengfulsquirrel> well honestly i would never use it
2009-01-16 04:59 <vengfulsquirrel> so if it works for your business
2009-01-16 04:59 <vengfulsquirrel> we only do make to stock
2009-01-16 04:59 <vengfulsquirrel> although
2009-01-16 04:59 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, we'll just impliment what we need and worry about other stuff later
2009-01-16 04:59 <vengfulsquirrel> TONIGHT i'm going to send an email out asking for feedback
2009-01-16 04:59 <vengfulsquirrel> and maybe some other people will get interested
2009-01-16 05:00 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk and bechamel both wanted me to do that I think
2009-01-16 05:00 <X0d_of_N0d> it would be cool to get more feedback
2009-01-16 05:00 <vengfulsquirrel> but yeah one2one
2009-01-16 05:00 <vengfulsquirrel> for now
2009-01-16 05:00 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 05:01 <vengfulsquirrel> and production requests don't exist
2009-01-16 05:01 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION nods
2009-01-16 05:01 <vengfulsquirrel> great
2009-01-16 05:01 <X0d_of_N0d> yes
2009-01-16 05:01 <vengfulsquirrel> so much progress its like were almost done
2009-01-16 05:01 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, almost ready to start
2009-01-16 05:01 <X0d_of_N0d> lol
2009-01-16 05:01 <vengfulsquirrel> ha yeah seriuosly
2009-01-16 05:01 <vengfulsquirrel> i have to add some plant addon too
2009-01-16 05:02 <vengfulsquirrel> which is why i need to start soon
2009-01-16 05:02 <vengfulsquirrel> so i can addon to SOMETHING
2009-01-16 05:02 <vengfulsquirrel> ha
2009-01-16 05:03 <X0d_of_N0d> I've got some other work to do here, but I'll try to help you out as soon as I can... and I'm always open for you to send me code or ask questions if you need any help or anything
2009-01-16 05:03 <X0d_of_N0d> sound fair?
2009-01-16 05:04 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah that's fine for phase one and a while into planning but eventually i'll have to be a least splitting the coding.
2009-01-16 05:04 <vengfulsquirrel> *at
2009-01-16 05:04 <vengfulsquirrel> Have you done customizations on openerp ?
2009-01-16 05:05 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, no problem, when you're side is done I
2009-01-16 05:05 <X0d_of_N0d> I'll take over
2009-01-16 05:05 <X0d_of_N0d> most of my work with openerp has been under the hood
2009-01-16 05:05 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm trying to learn more about tryton, which looks like it's a lot easier to work with
2009-01-16 05:06 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah its a lot easier to install
2009-01-16 05:06 <X0d_of_N0d> and has way better documentation
2009-01-16 05:06 <X0d_of_N0d> and the directory structure is better, the code is cleaner... etc
2009-01-16 05:07 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah it definately seems cleaner which is why i thought i'd start using it since i have no experience with either.
2009-01-16 05:08 <X0d_of_N0d> tinyerp seems to slowly be getting worse on a lot of levels...
2009-01-16 05:08 <X0d_of_N0d> well, yeah, whatever
2009-01-16 05:08 <vengfulsquirrel> I think they took a lot of time to move over to that trac-like software which might have set them back a bit.
2009-01-16 05:09 <vengfulsquirrel> but yeah I don't know hopefully things work out for both groups
2009-01-16 05:10 <vengfulsquirrel> Anyways so
2009-01-16 05:10 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 05:10 <vengfulsquirrel> I'm going to put up the location diagram
2009-01-16 05:10 <X0d_of_N0d> cool
2009-01-16 05:10 <vengfulsquirrel> into g-code
2009-01-16 05:10 <X0d_of_N0d> and modify the bom structure diagram?
2009-01-16 05:10 <vengfulsquirrel> and ughh maybe clean up the bom christmas tree
2009-01-16 05:10 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 05:10 <vengfulsquirrel> and then move the road map to the top
2009-01-16 05:11 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 05:11 <vengfulsquirrel> and maybe make it more sentence like and then clean up the feature list a bit
2009-01-16 05:11 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-16 05:11 <X0d_of_N0d> cool
2009-01-16 05:11 <vengfulsquirrel> are the comments still applicable?
2009-01-16 05:12 <X0d_of_N0d> the notes thing?
2009-01-16 05:12 <vengfulsquirrel> your notes
2009-01-16 05:12 <vengfulsquirrel> i think the second and third one are solved
2009-01-16 05:12 <vengfulsquirrel> the first one always confused me
2009-01-16 05:12 <X0d_of_N0d> the last two can be dropped
2009-01-16 05:12 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 05:12 <X0d_of_N0d> lets see
2009-01-16 05:13 <X0d_of_N0d> rather than having workcenters we could have resources that contain workcenters
2009-01-16 05:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Oh hmm
2009-01-16 05:13 <X0d_of_N0d> that way things could be scheduled across multiple workcenters
2009-01-16 05:13 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah i was thinking of making groups of workcenters and tieing a routing operation to a group
2009-01-16 05:14 <vengfulsquirrel> so then it could be chosen within that group
2009-01-16 05:14 <X0d_of_N0d> exactly
2009-01-16 05:14 <vengfulsquirrel> is that what you mean?
2009-01-16 05:14 <vengfulsquirrel> okay
2009-01-16 05:14 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 05:14 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah so i think being explicitly about the workcenter might be required
2009-01-16 05:14 <vengfulsquirrel> and doing resources seperately
2009-01-16 05:14 <vengfulsquirrel> like trucks/tools or whatever
2009-01-16 05:14 <vengfulsquirrel> is that what a resource is ?
2009-01-16 05:15 <X0d_of_N0d> I was just thinking about a term to use
2009-01-16 05:19 -!- X0d_of_N0d(i=user@gateway/tor/x-5c95cd63f0af1d20) has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:19 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:19 -!- CIA-10(n=CIA@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:19 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:19 -!- panthera( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:26 -!- yangoon( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:26 -!- X0d_of_N0d(i=user@gateway/tor/x-5c95cd63f0af1d20) has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:26 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:26 -!- CIA-10(n=CIA@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:26 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:26 -!- panthera( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 05:27 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Did I just drop? What if people don't want to make to order?
2009-01-16 05:27 <X0d_of_N0d> brb
2009-01-16 05:53 <vengfulsquirrel> Wow another problem is I think we need to break this up into more cohesive modules.
2009-01-16 06:21 -!- gremly(n=oscar@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 06:43 <X0d_of_N0d> people might want to track that stuff down, but we don't need to worry about that right now
2009-01-16 06:48 <X0d_of_N0d> if people want to make to stock you could manually generate the production orders
2009-01-16 06:50 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm heading home
2009-01-16 06:50 <X0d_of_N0d> we'll talk tomorrow
2009-01-16 06:51 <vengfulsquirrel> okay talk to you then
2009-01-16 06:52 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has left #tryton
2009-01-16 06:52 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 07:13 <CIA-10> tryton: vengfulsquirrel * r420 /wiki/ Edited wiki page through web user interface.
2009-01-16 07:26 <vengfulsquirrel> Has anyone successfully uploaded images to the wiki?
2009-01-16 08:22 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 08:41 <vengfulsquirrel> Timitos: Are you able to checkout the wiki ?
2009-01-16 08:42 <vengfulsquirrel> Timitos: Or do you know how I should display a photo, that's what I was trying to do.
2009-01-16 09:28 -!- nicoe( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 09:30 -!- carlos(n=carlos@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 09:49 -!- enlightx(n=enlightx@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 10:08 -!- simahawk(n=simao@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 10:08 -!- simao_(n=simao@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 10:15 <CIA-10> tryton: vengfulsquirrel * r421 /wiki/ Updated wiki page text and externally linked to some figures until they can be uploaded somewhere officially.
2009-01-16 10:19 -!- bechamel(n=user@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 10:27 -!- carlos( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 10:53 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 10:58 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/ has left #tryton
2009-01-16 11:04 -!- cristi_an(n=cristi@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 11:06 <cristi_an> bechamel: in the party menu
2009-01-16 11:07 <cristi_an> if i install only that module
2009-01-16 11:08 <cristi_an> the menu looks like this Parties/New Party Adresses/new Addess but on category
2009-01-16 11:08 <cristi_an> there are edit and new
2009-01-16 11:08 <cristi_an> ?
2009-01-16 11:08 <cristi_an> what is the reason not having edit on address or party as well ?
2009-01-16 11:10 <bechamel> cristi_an: there is no technical reason, just end user considerations
2009-01-16 11:11 <bechamel> cristi_an: actually there is edit for party and adress too, it's just the name
2009-01-16 11:12 <bechamel> cristi_an: the idea is that once created, there are no big changes on categories, so the defaut menu just open the tree of categories
2009-01-16 11:12 <cristi_an> sao only logical and application reasons
2009-01-16 11:13 <cristi_an> thx
2009-01-16 11:13 <bechamel> yes
2009-01-16 11:18 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 11:19 -!- Gedd( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 11:31 <cristi_an> the csv for translation is stored in the db ?
2009-01-16 11:33 <cedk> cristi_an: yes in ir.translation
2009-01-16 11:33 <cristi_an> the content from csv
2009-01-16 11:34 <cedk> cristi_an: yes, you can look in ir/ there is two function for import and export
2009-01-16 11:36 <cristi_an>
2009-01-16 11:37 <cristi_an> i will follwow this
2009-01-16 11:53 <cristi_an> how can i specify a model filed is unique ?
2009-01-16 11:56 <bechamel>
2009-01-16 11:58 <bechamel> read explanation about _sql_constraints, and a "grep UNIQUE modules/*/*py" should give you some examples
2009-01-16 12:16 -!- gremly(n=oscar@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 12:21 <cristi_an> in a custom scenario
2009-01-16 12:21 <cristi_an> is possible to ad the shortcuts on new save delete
2009-01-16 12:22 <cristi_an> on the buttons ?
2009-01-16 12:23 <cedk> cristi_an: there is (CTRL+N, CTRL+S, CTRL+D)
2009-01-16 12:23 <cedk> cristi_an: and you can change it if you want
2009-01-16 12:24 <cristi_an> maybe a wizzard on the the begging informing the user this shortcuts ?
2009-01-16 12:24 <cedk> cristi_an: go in the menu form, put the cursor on one entry and type the new shortcut
2009-01-16 12:24 <cristi_an> or tip
2009-01-16 12:24 <cedk> cristi_an: it is on the menubar
2009-01-16 12:25 <cedk> cristi_an: but we can add a tip on how customize shortcuts
2009-01-16 12:25 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1159:12ca894689c6 tryton/TODO: Add todo tip
2009-01-16 12:29 <cristi_an> cedk: you tal about shortcuts in the left bottm side of the application ?
2009-01-16 12:30 <cedk> cristi_an: no
2009-01-16 12:30 <cedk> cristi_an: this is what we call actions
2009-01-16 12:30 <cristi_an> actiosn indeeed
2009-01-16 12:30 <cristi_an> new ,delete,update
2009-01-16 12:31 <cristi_an> where is that menu form ?
2009-01-16 12:34 -!- paola( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 12:35 <cedk> cristi_an: on top with File, User, ...
2009-01-16 12:36 <cristi_an> cedk: there is no menu form :)
2009-01-16 12:36 <cristi_an> W*
2009-01-16 12:36 <cristi_an> w8
2009-01-16 12:36 <cristi_an> i got it
2009-01-16 12:36 <cristi_an> :)
2009-01-16 12:36 <cristi_an> my mistake
2009-01-16 12:37 <cristi_an> so in the menu go to form ....
2009-01-16 12:37 <cristi_an> :))
2009-01-16 12:37 <cristi_an> nice features :)
2009-01-16 12:38 <cristi_an> one more thing : i am in the party and there i may add more addresses to the same party
2009-01-16 12:38 <cristi_an> is possible to use only key without mouse for doing that ?
2009-01-16 12:38 <cristi_an> to add more addreses to the same party
2009-01-16 12:38 <cristi_an> ?
2009-01-16 12:40 <cedk> cristi_an: press F3 when the cursor is in the address form
2009-01-16 12:40 <cedk> cristi_an: for many widgets, F3 = new record and F2 = open in popup
2009-01-16 12:43 <CIA-10> tryton: cristi roundup * #750/ValueError: list.index(x): x not in list: [new] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/tryton/gui/window/view_form/view/form_gtk/", line 505, in switch_view self.screen ...
2009-01-16 12:58 -!- carlos( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 13:00 <cristi_an> cedk: just as feature , i do not knwo fi is possible but i ask: when i am in address or in other entity that is part of a major enitty like party has address
2009-01-16 13:00 <cristi_an> is not possible to use the same keys
2009-01-16 13:00 <cristi_an> ctrl-n
2009-01-16 13:00 <cristi_an> ctrl-s
2009-01-16 13:00 <cristi_an> etc
2009-01-16 13:00 <cristi_an> when i am isside of an address filed (or in an addres (subentity) ) from
2009-01-16 13:01 <cristi_an> not a good idea...!!!
2009-01-16 13:01 <cristi_an> since then it colide with main enity
2009-01-16 13:01 <cristi_an> sorry
2009-01-16 13:02 <cristi_an> so if i wnt to save the main entity i have to go back ....etc...
2009-01-16 13:02 <cristi_an> f3 is ok
2009-01-16 13:07 <CIA-10> tryton: ced roundup * #750/ValueError: list.index(x): x not in list: [chatting] How to reproduce the issue?
2009-01-16 13:24 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1160:3857162e79e1 tryton/TODO: Add todo for domain
2009-01-16 13:24 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1161:a09192ff677e tryton/tryton/common/ Backed out changeset 2c78e37cc65b
2009-01-16 13:24 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1162:e54e863441bc tryton/: merge
2009-01-16 13:31 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 323:f450c400af79 account/ Fix name_search when args is None
2009-01-16 13:33 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 36:58a21f317d9a analytic_purchase/COPYRIGHT: Update copyright
2009-01-16 13:33 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 37:958a78b1b8b4 analytic_purchase/ Fix read of not line type
2009-01-16 13:33 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 38:5634a1a7af3f analytic_purchase/ Fix check_for_quotation for not line type for issue741
2009-01-16 13:33 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 36:ffc70a684fdb analytic_invoice/COPYRIGHT: Update copyright
2009-01-16 13:33 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 37:9382d7cbb69e analytic_invoice/ Fix read for not line type
2009-01-16 13:33 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 25:1b6c725dd316 analytic_sale/COPYRIGHT: Update copyright
2009-01-16 13:33 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 26:75fdfc9e0624 analytic_sale/ Fix read of not line type
2009-01-16 13:34 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 390:75778376c711 stock/ Improve test on product in context and fix some guidelines
2009-01-16 13:34 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 391:799af538e975 stock/ Fix typo in pick_product consumable for issue736
2009-01-16 13:34 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 392:f26e3ef6ca5f stock/COPYRIGHT: Update copyright
2009-01-16 13:42 <CIA-10> tryton: Mathias Behrle <> default * 106:d23b1063afc2 sale/ Add comments on sale lines
2009-01-16 14:43 <yangoon> cedk: since you added additional notebooks to purchase/sale/invoice lines: what is the notion of the additional comments, that can now be joined to positions?
2009-01-16 14:43 <yangoon> cedk: are they meant for internal use of the enterprise or are they meant for printing?
2009-01-16 14:45 <cedk> yangoon: there are not printed, so it is for internal comments
2009-01-16 14:45 <yangoon> cedk: ok
2009-01-16 14:45 <yangoon> cedk: just wanted to know, if reports would have to be extended to print them
2009-01-16 14:46 <cedk> yangoon: no I don't think so
2009-01-16 14:46 <yangoon> cedk: but it is better this way, yes
2009-01-16 14:46 -!- carlos_( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 14:47 <yangoon> for printed comments a comment line can be inserted
2009-01-16 14:48 <yangoon> cedk: perhaps the notebook should be called 'notes' instead of 'comment', to avoid confusion?
2009-01-16 14:50 <cedk> yangoon: I don't think it will change anything
2009-01-16 14:51 <yangoon> cedk: from the point of the user yes
2009-01-16 14:51 <yangoon> it is then different from line type comment
2009-01-16 14:51 <cedk> yangoon: I don't see any
2009-01-16 14:52 <yangoon> and notes has a more private meaning, so a user won't be surprised to see them not being printed
2009-01-16 14:53 <yangoon> cedk: there will surely be questions, why comment here and why comment there, is it the same or not
2009-01-16 14:53 <yangoon> cedk: and if we are total logic, why not comments for comments ;)?
2009-01-16 14:55 <yangoon> cedk: last sentence means, why isn't it possible to add comments to comments? (only a question of logic, not of usability)
2009-01-16 14:57 <yangoon> cedk: to explain again: the user sees he can input a comment, and then notebook comment is empty
2009-01-16 14:58 <cedk> yangoon: ok, but so we must rename the field into note
2009-01-16 14:59 <cedk> because it will be confusing for programmers also
2009-01-16 14:59 <yangoon> cedk: will that change also line type into note?
2009-01-16 15:00 <cedk> this needs a little migration
2009-01-16 15:00 <yangoon> cedk: I see, but I think it is worth
2009-01-16 15:00 <cedk> yangoon: no, because of your remarks
2009-01-16 15:00 <cedk> yangoon: I don't understand
2009-01-16 15:01 <yangoon> cedk what I would like to see:
2009-01-16 15:02 <yangoon> cedk: line type comment for input of comments (no need for notes/comments on comments, but OTOH why not?)
2009-01-16 15:02 <yangoon> cedk: and notebooks General and Notes, notes containing notes
2009-01-16 15:04 <cedk> yangoon: that is what I say
2009-01-16 15:05 <yangoon> cedk: then we agree perfectly
2009-01-16 15:05 <cedk> and that why I say we must change the field comment into note
2009-01-16 15:07 <yangoon> cedk: perhaps even better to enable notes on comment lines to have the same layout for all line types?
2009-01-16 15:08 <cedk> yes no change on this
2009-01-16 15:08 <yangoon> cedk: so the user experiences in general, notes are being kept private and totally different from comments
2009-01-16 15:09 <yangoon> cedk: this would be a chnange, because currently it is not possible to put comments(notes) on comment lines (notebook comment is empty)
2009-01-16 15:09 <cedk> yes
2009-01-16 15:10 <yangoon> ok, great
2009-01-16 15:10 <cedk> yangoon: ho, yes but there is two possibility: hide the tab or don't hide the field
2009-01-16 15:12 <yangoon> cedk: yes, I think notes on comments will be rarely used, but perhaps there is some case where it could be useful, so I would rather enable
2009-01-16 15:12 <cedk> ok
2009-01-16 15:14 -!- ikks(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 15:16 -!- juanfer(n=juanfer@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 16:20 -!- cristi_an(n=cristi@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 16:43 <cristi_an>
2009-01-16 17:11 -!- carlos(n=carlos@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 17:27 -!- simahawk(n=simao@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 17:45 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 18:20 -!- carlos(n=carlos@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 18:38 -!- mrcast1( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 18:47 -!- mrcast1( has left #tryton
2009-01-16 18:51 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 1468:9e28711f7063 trytond/TODO: Remove todo
2009-01-16 18:51 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 429:e1260a0fd1f7 stock/ Add on_change_uom to handle unit_price and don't round unit_price when calling currency.compute
2009-01-16 19:07 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 213:f4c273abc781 purchase/ ( purchase.xml): Rename comment into note because there is now a comment type
2009-01-16 19:07 <CIA-10> tryton: C?dric Krier <> default * 107:70a335ea2748 sale/ ( sale.xml): Rename comment into note because there is a comment type
2009-01-16 19:09 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 19:38 -!- paola( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 19:38 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION looks around
2009-01-16 19:38 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: hey
2009-01-16 19:38 <vengfulsquirrel> hey
2009-01-16 19:39 <vengfulsquirrel> How's it going ?
2009-01-16 19:39 <X0d_of_N0d> sorry about kind of dropping yesterday, my manager's brother started talking to me about some stuff
2009-01-16 19:39 <X0d_of_N0d> not bad, just looking at the wiki page
2009-01-16 19:40 <X0d_of_N0d> at a glance it looks pretty good
2009-01-16 19:40 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah that's fine, I think we made some headway
2009-01-16 19:40 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah the feature list is kind of a mess
2009-01-16 19:40 <X0d_of_N0d> definitely
2009-01-16 19:40 <X0d_of_N0d> lemme look at it for a bit, I just kind of skimmed it
2009-01-16 19:40 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Is there a way to upload images to the wiki?
2009-01-16 19:48 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 19:55 -!- tekknokrat( has left #tryton
2009-01-16 19:55 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: inventory shouldn't be consumed until a job run is complete
2009-01-16 19:56 <vengfulsquirrel> well if its being used on the production line i assume that its consumed
2009-01-16 19:56 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: maybe if the job is canceled the user should put in how much material was actually used...
2009-01-16 19:57 <X0d_of_N0d> right, but production could start then be canceled with all or most of the material still intact
2009-01-16 19:58 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah how often does that happen ?
2009-01-16 20:00 <X0d_of_N0d> not very often, but if it did happen you'd have to manually pull stuff out of consumed which would be a huge pain
2009-01-16 20:00 <vengfulsquirrel> Maybe there should be an expected, used quantity for each material.
2009-01-16 20:00 <vengfulsquirrel> That is pre-filled based on the bom
2009-01-16 20:01 <vengfulsquirrel> and then can be adjusted at the end of the run.
2009-01-16 20:01 <vengfulsquirrel> Ha and then we can add 40,000 more moves.
2009-01-16 20:01 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-16 20:02 <X0d_of_N0d> brb
2009-01-16 20:09 <X0d_of_N0d> back
2009-01-16 20:14 <vengfulsquirrel> Did you see cedk's email on the list ?
2009-01-16 20:14 <X0d_of_N0d> no, i didn't
2009-01-16 20:14 -!- evernichon( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 20:14 <vengfulsquirrel> What do you think about creating production orders in a similar way to how purchase requests are created with the stock_supply module ?
2009-01-16 20:15 <X0d_of_N0d> I'll have to look at the code
2009-01-16 20:16 <X0d_of_N0d> I think the workflow would be similar, so I don't see anything wrong with that idea
2009-01-16 20:17 <X0d_of_N0d> I think the workflow for production should be the same as the workflow for sales and purchasing
2009-01-16 20:18 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah okay I guess it doesn't seem like there will be a clear connection between sales and production orders. Is that what we want?
2009-01-16 20:19 <X0d_of_N0d> there does need to be a connection, but if we can do something manually we can do it automatically
2009-01-16 20:20 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION looks more at the code
2009-01-16 20:21 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 20:25 -!- sharkcz( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 20:29 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: if we start off and there's no link between sales and production I think that's fine because we can add it later, do you see any problem with doing things that way?
2009-01-16 20:30 <vengfulsquirrel> Just as long as I can turn it off
2009-01-16 20:30 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I think you must add it with subversion
2009-01-16 20:30 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: I tried to checkout but its not working.
2009-01-16 20:30 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: in the wiki directory
2009-01-16 20:30 <vengfulsquirrel> wiki/images ?
2009-01-16 20:30 <X0d_of_N0d> we'll decide how to make that work when we're ready to figure out how to link the two
2009-01-16 20:31 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Do you usually stock configured products?
2009-01-16 20:31 <X0d_of_N0d> I think we make configured products to order
2009-01-16 20:32 <X0d_of_N0d> or we stock a base assembly that can be configured, but usually we make to order
2009-01-16 20:32 <X0d_of_N0d> afaik
2009-01-16 20:34 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Yeah that's a problem right there, if configured products are inventoried they must be somehow stored uniquely.
2009-01-16 20:35 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Or never stored in inventory for longer than production can make them and move them to the customer.
2009-01-16 20:36 <X0d_of_N0d> In the current system we use configured boms have their own part numbers
2009-01-16 20:36 <vengfulsquirrel> Each configuration? Or each configured bom ?
2009-01-16 20:36 <X0d_of_N0d> each configuration
2009-01-16 20:36 <X0d_of_N0d> I don't feel like that's the right way to do it though
2009-01-16 20:38 <X0d_of_N0d> then again, we can't really link a configurable bom to a specific part number because each different configuration should have a unique part number...
2009-01-16 20:38 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-16 20:39 <X0d_of_N0d> unless configurations *don't* have unique part numbers...
2009-01-16 20:39 <X0d_of_N0d> but then we need some other way to store the configuration information
2009-01-16 20:41 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah and then if the revision changes...
2009-01-16 20:41 <vengfulsquirrel> new part numbers for everyone!
2009-01-16 20:41 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 20:41 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 20:42 <X0d_of_N0d> no, revisions wouldn't change the part number
2009-01-16 20:42 <X0d_of_N0d> that's the point of revisions
2009-01-16 20:43 <X0d_of_N0d> we could use a numbering scheme to make virtual part numbers
2009-01-16 20:44 <X0d_of_N0d> e.g.: a configurable bom has a part number 123
2009-01-16 20:44 <vengfulsquirrel> I meant the configuration part numbers would change if that configuration was different or completely removed.
2009-01-16 20:44 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 20:45 <X0d_of_N0d> but that's where revs come in
2009-01-16 20:47 <X0d_of_N0d> wow...that really sucks
2009-01-16 20:47 <vengfulsquirrel> Which one?
2009-01-16 20:47 <X0d_of_N0d> storing config'd bom info if the configurable bom itself changes
2009-01-16 20:50 <X0d_of_N0d> I wish we had more systems to look at to figure out how other people did this
2009-01-16 20:50 <vengfulsquirrel> I think this is always a problem of the ages.
2009-01-16 20:51 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-16 20:51 <vengfulsquirrel> Similar to the colors/sizes stuff. No one wants to maintain them all but everyone wants to reap the benefits of having them seperate.
2009-01-16 20:51 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-16 20:53 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm yeah but any product that is configured needs to have a bom tracking tree pretty much.
2009-01-16 20:55 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, or something
2009-01-16 20:56 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm sending the wiki stuff to my boss to have him take a look at it and see if he catches anything I missed
2009-01-16 20:58 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay
2009-01-16 21:11 <X0d_of_N0d> brb
2009-01-16 21:20 -!- paola( has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 21:26 -!- X0d_of_N0d(i=user@gateway/tor/x-30ba472c1b831fa8) has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 21:37 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Do you think the production order should have another state from Running to Finished to Done so that between Finished and Done moves can be created back to Storage ?
2009-01-16 21:44 <cristi_an> guys you try to do some generic thing but be sure that in this filed there is not such thing as a standard.....
2009-01-16 21:45 <cristi_an> unfortunatelly
2009-01-16 21:45 <cristi_an> so if you will have 10 customers you'll see that you will have like 6,7 diffrent requests
2009-01-16 21:51 <vengfulsquirrel> cristi_an: ?
2009-01-16 21:55 -!- X0d_of_N0d(i=user@gateway/tor/x-db4792a8484753f2) has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 21:56 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: did you get the last few things I said?
2009-01-16 21:58 <vengfulsquirrel> (12:13:24) X0d_of_N0d: brb <-- this is all I got
2009-01-16 22:00 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Did you get my question about a new production order state ?
2009-01-16 22:01 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah....ok
2009-01-16 22:01 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: draft, assigned, in progress, stopped (or paused), canceled, completed
2009-01-16 22:01 <X0d_of_N0d> I think move should take place when the job is completed, I don't think we need another state
2009-01-16 22:02 <X0d_of_N0d> in the future I think materials should be moved as they're allocated so if we have 10 metal blocks and the job is 50% complete then we have 5 blocks used and 5 new parts
2009-01-16 22:02 <vengfulsquirrel> which move should take place? the move from produced to output zone or the move from the output zone to the storage?
2009-01-16 22:02 <X0d_of_N0d> but we can deal with granular tracking of materials and labor later on
2009-01-16 22:03 <X0d_of_N0d> to the output zone, the next move is up to the user (storage or shipping)
2009-01-16 22:04 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah but with the way the stock supply module works it should always go back to storage
2009-01-16 22:04 <X0d_of_N0d> or perhaps the default location could be defined in the bom
2009-01-16 22:04 <vengfulsquirrel> even if its virtual
2009-01-16 22:05 <vengfulsquirrel> I sent another email to the list explaining my understanding of the stock supply way of doing things.
2009-01-16 22:06 <X0d_of_N0d> hum.........
2009-01-16 22:06 <X0d_of_N0d> I guess I'm not on the list
2009-01-16 22:06 <vengfulsquirrel> You can just go to google groups and probably read it
2009-01-16 22:07 <vengfulsquirrel> but you should probably get on the list , everybody is doing it
2009-01-16 22:07 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, I'm joining the group too so... yeah.
2009-01-16 22:07 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm gonna get some lunch first
2009-01-16 22:07 <X0d_of_N0d> I'll be back in a bit
2009-01-16 22:59 -!- mmarshall(n=mmarshal@ has joined #tryton
2009-01-16 23:02 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: for your remarks about color/size with products, we had the template mecanisme on product
2009-01-16 23:02 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: in fact the model product.product inherits from product.template (inherit is like a one2many)
2009-01-16 23:03 <cedk> so you have one product.template with many product.product that are linked to it
2009-01-16 23:03 <cedk> and shared many commons property like accounting stuff etc...
2009-01-16 23:04 <cedk> it is not visible directly in the current interface but it is there
2009-01-16 23:05 <vengfulsquirrel> So each color/size combination would be a seperate product but they would share common properties via a template?
2009-01-16 23:06 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: ^
2009-01-16 23:07 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes
2009-01-16 23:08 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: the same method could be used for storing configurable bom choices....
2009-01-16 23:08 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION thinks... yeah, that's kind of what cedk said, huh
2009-01-16 23:09 <vengfulsquirrel> Well except those are properties whereas configurable boms are more like physical pieces, I'm not sure, I'll have to look at it.
2009-01-16 23:09 <vengfulsquirrel> But I didn't know existed and now I know.
2009-01-16 23:11 <X0d_of_N0d> boms could be linked to tempalte and bom choices could just be a field in product that's not used unless the bom linked to the template is configurable
2009-01-16 23:15 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: That still doesn't solve the configured product identification problem unless we make a product for every configuration of the BOM, is that what you mean?
2009-01-16 23:17 <X0d_of_N0d> yes
2009-01-16 23:18 <X0d_of_N0d> instead of configuring everything during sales you'd configure while creating the boms
2009-01-16 23:19 <X0d_of_N0d> so if a new order came in for a configuration that doesn't exist you'd create a new product and configure the bom connected to it...
2009-01-16 23:20 <vengfulsquirrel> So every product would then always have a fixed bom.
2009-01-16 23:20 <X0d_of_N0d> then add the new part number to the sales order
2009-01-16 23:21 <X0d_of_N0d> no, every template would have a bom, then the product would have the configuration of it
2009-01-16 23:21 <cedk> I don't understand what you name confgured BOM ?
2009-01-16 23:22 <cedk> for me, a BOM is the instruction to create one product
2009-01-16 23:22 <X0d_of_N0d> right but a bom can be configurable so that the same bom can make multiple different items depending on what you choose
2009-01-16 23:22 <X0d_of_N0d> a configurable bom is much like a product template
2009-01-16 23:23 <cedk> we can make that a BOM can be use to construct a product.product or a product.template
2009-01-16 23:24 <vengfulsquirrel> So maybe configurable boms should actually be created in the Production Management area and then a product can choose to use it under its production tab to define its fixed BOM.
2009-01-16 23:25 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I don't think that it is real, in the BOM you define the product you need to produce, so it can not be use for any product
2009-01-16 23:25 <X0d_of_N0d> we'd need a ui to product.template
2009-01-16 23:29 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Yeah the configurable bom is just supposed to help with BOM maintanence so you don't have to maintained 256 boms for a computer you sell because there are 4 monitor types, 4 hard drive types, 4 cpu types and 4 memory types.
2009-01-16 23:29 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: ?
2009-01-16 23:30 <vengfulsquirrel> I think the difference between the product template and what we need is that the product's themselves don't extend the template really they just share it.
2009-01-16 23:31 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: which is exactly what we want
2009-01-16 23:31 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Do you think if people made a change to the bom configuration then it would be okay to re-write a new revision of each configured bom used by products?
2009-01-16 23:31 <X0d_of_N0d> anything in product template is shared across all things that share a template
2009-01-16 23:31 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: No because each product will have a different configuration.
2009-01-16 23:32 <X0d_of_N0d> right, but the bom will be shared
2009-01-16 23:32 <X0d_of_N0d> the configuration would be stored in product.product
2009-01-16 23:32 <vengfulsquirrel> I'm saying what if we don't store a mere configuration what if we just treat it like a seperate bom but read only and then the configurator can push revisions into it as the shared bom changes.
2009-01-16 23:33 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: then we have replication of data and that's bad
2009-01-16 23:33 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: the mecanism between product.product and product.template allow to define for example several colors for the same product (like a bike or a shirt) but two cpu are gonna be two different templates
2009-01-16 23:34 <X0d_of_N0d> bechamel: unless we extend template to support that
2009-01-16 23:34 <bechamel> so maybe a instead of configurable bom i would talk about configurable bom line: so a computer bom will contain the bom line cpu which contain cpu1 and cpu2 (and a sequence to tell which cpu use by default)
2009-01-16 23:36 <vengfulsquirrel> bechamel: That is kind of what was originally proposed except I refer to a configurable bom as a bom that contains configurable bom lines.
2009-01-16 23:36 <bechamel> the product order than will explode all the needed boms, and the user can force some alternate products for some lines (i don't know how will be the gui)n one can also imagine that default product are overiden by other product on the same bom line if the other product is available in stock
2009-01-16 23:37 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: ok, the difficult part in this kind of talk is to find a common vocabulary :)
2009-01-16 23:38 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-01-16 23:39 <X0d_of_N0d> we're talking about a subject where they use the exact same letters for two different things
2009-01-16 23:39 <vengfulsquirrel> The BOM Lines in the middle are the configurable BOM lines.
2009-01-16 23:40 <vengfulsquirrel> ha yeah seriusoly i've been pretty disgusted with the books i've read, its like one big money scam
2009-01-16 23:40 <X0d_of_N0d> two different *related* things
2009-01-16 23:40 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: :)
2009-01-16 23:41 <vengfulsquirrel> I've also found multiple definitions, sometimes completely contradictory, for almost every term.
2009-01-16 23:41 <vengfulsquirrel> Anyways ha end of rant.
2009-01-16 23:41 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: i'm not at ease with the graph, i like to think with db tables ..
2009-01-16 23:42 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: yes
2009-01-16 23:42 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION grinz
2009-01-16 23:42 <X0d_of_N0d> bechamel: ok, so the layout would sort of be like this....
2009-01-16 23:42 <vengfulsquirrel> bechamel: Okay yeah I was going to make a drawing of the entity relationships so maybe I'll do that this weekend.
2009-01-16 23:44 <vengfulsquirrel> I think as long as we somehow make a product for each configuration things will be much simpler. I'm just worried that changes to the main configuration will be difficult to handle, ie. what happens to all the depend products?
2009-01-16 23:44 <X0d_of_N0d> bom_id, rev, bom_type, bom_lines
2009-01-16 23:46 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: hum... lets think about this
2009-01-16 23:47 <bechamel> creating lot of product just to handle several kind of bom is not a good solution
2009-01-16 23:48 <bechamel> and one should find a solution that is modular enough to avoid reconfiguration nightmares :)
2009-01-16 23:49 <bechamel> there is also an other difficulty: sometimes it's not enough for a bom to only "output" one product, for example different size of adhesive paper are created in the same time from a big paper roller and glue
2009-01-16 23:49 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah you mean like a bom should signify a quantity and uom ?
2009-01-16 23:49 <bechamel> and sometimes production generate also wastes
2009-01-16 23:49 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: each product links back to it's template. It would be possible to do a search to find all the dependances...
2009-01-16 23:50 <X0d_of_N0d> if a change to a configurable bom made a configured bom impossible then the ui could ask if you want to invalidate the bom?
2009-01-16 23:50 <X0d_of_N0d> bechamel: the products would exist anyway, this is just a way to unify the boms so you don't need replicated data
2009-01-16 23:51 <vengfulsquirrel> bechamel: In the United States we just dump waste in the nearest watershed and don't document it. Do you mean like partially finished products or like stuff that can be recycled or used in another process?
2009-01-16 23:51 <X0d_of_N0d> bechamel: and would share a bom, therefore share a template
2009-01-16 23:52 <bechamel> the first idea of a bom for me, is a list of (qty, product) as input materials and another list (qty, product) as output material, but it's not modular, so each list item should be something like a porduct but not a product
2009-01-16 23:53 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm yeah maybe there could be a wastes list associated with a bom.
2009-01-16 23:53 <X0d_of_N0d> bechamel: you mean reusable materials that are different than the input materials?
2009-01-16 23:53 <X0d_of_N0d> bechamel: if it's not modular it won't work.
2009-01-16 23:53 <X0d_of_N0d> bechamel: it's not possible to maintain static boms for thousands of possible items
2009-01-16 23:53 <X0d_of_N0d> modular boms are absolutely essential for companies with configurable products
2009-01-16 23:54 <bechamel> X0d_of_N0d: i don't thing that using the product.template - product.product relation will lead to something good (at least for the rest of the system it would be a major change of the semantic og templates)
2009-01-16 23:54 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: I still think read-only static boms might be a good option.
2009-01-16 23:55 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: yes i think about reusable materials and also for toxic wastes that should be tracked
2009-01-16 23:55 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: if you have static boms you might as well not have boms at all
2009-01-16 23:55 <X0d_of_N0d> at least for us
2009-01-16 23:55 <vengfulsquirrel> bechamel: Okay yeah that sounds like something that would be good to be addressed, maybe between Running and Finished those could be updated with actual quantities produced.
2009-01-16 23:55 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: yes bom must be readonly, but the product order should allow to choose across sevearal configuration
2009-01-16 23:56 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: I don't see any difference other than under the hood.
2009-01-16 23:56 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-16 23:56 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: maybe I'm misunderstanding you
2009-01-16 23:57 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: You can't update the configurable bom without sending revision updates to every dependent product's static bom. Really maybe we'd store 50% more bom data.
2009-01-16 23:58 <vengfulsquirrel> but it would simplify everything because then every product would have essentially a static bom
2009-01-16 23:58 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: what do you mean exactly by static ?
2009-01-16 23:59 <X0d_of_N0d> but if you update a shared bom you need to update everything that uses that bom
2009-01-16 23:59 <vengfulsquirrel> Not configurable, just a standard list of materials
2009-01-16 23:59 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Yeah, you have to anyways.

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!