IRC logs of #tryton for Saturday, 2009-01-24

chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Sat Jan 24 00:00:01 CET 2009
2009-01-24 00:09 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: hey, I've got two fields I want to equally streach across to fill a line
2009-01-24 00:10 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: how would I do that?
2009-01-24 00:10 <X0d_of_N0d> I tried to create a group and use fill="1" and expand="1" and that didn't work
2009-01-24 00:10 <X0d_of_N0d> and I tried fill="1" on the field...
2009-01-24 00:14 <carlos> good night!!!
2009-01-24 00:14 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: it is not possible
2009-01-24 00:14 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-24 00:14 <X0d_of_N0d> damn
2009-01-24 00:14 <X0d_of_N0d> that sucks
2009-01-24 00:14 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: fill attribute is to set the last column to fill
2009-01-24 00:15 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: but the client can remember the column size of view
2009-01-24 00:15 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: if you enable the option in the form preferences
2009-01-24 00:15 <X0d_of_N0d> so I need to set a static column size
2009-01-24 00:15 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: or you can set a width to the columns
2009-01-24 00:16 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: but I think the best is to let the user decide
2009-01-24 00:16 <X0d_of_N0d> user decide?
2009-01-24 00:16 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: yes adjusting the size
2009-01-24 00:16 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm trying to design a view
2009-01-24 00:16 <X0d_of_N0d> how?
2009-01-24 00:17 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: in Option>Form>Save Columns width
2009-01-24 00:17 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: I need to go now
2009-01-24 00:17 <cedk> bye
2009-01-24 00:17 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: later
2009-01-24 00:22 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-71-202-125-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 00:22 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Hey dude, I think I quite possibly took the longest lunch anyone has ever taken and called "lunch".
2009-01-24 00:23 <X0d_of_N0d> lol
2009-01-24 00:25 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm fighting with the tryton ui xml stuff for the ldap module
2009-01-24 00:25 <X0d_of_N0d> man, coding is so easy... making things look right is such a pain
2009-01-24 00:25 <X0d_of_N0d> why can't everything just be commandline
2009-01-24 00:26 <vengfulsquirrel> ha have you ever tried to format UI's on the command line
2009-01-24 00:26 <vengfulsquirrel> impossible
2009-01-24 00:26 <X0d_of_N0d> ever use xdialog?
2009-01-24 00:26 <X0d_of_N0d> hehe
2009-01-24 00:26 <vengfulsquirrel> Nope
2009-01-24 00:26 <X0d_of_N0d> commandline ui
2009-01-24 00:26 <vengfulsquirrel> I mainly do web development though
2009-01-24 00:27 <vengfulsquirrel> I'm still trying to figure out how everything even works in Tryton.
2009-01-24 00:27 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, I really wish Tryton (or more accurately terp) had leveraged a more html style syntax
2009-01-24 00:27 <X0d_of_N0d> for hr *use* hr
2009-01-24 00:28 <X0d_of_N0d> then, if you need to, extend that
2009-01-24 00:28 <X0d_of_N0d> but I guess that's the point of the web client, isn't it...
2009-01-24 00:28 <X0d_of_N0d> bah... give me curses
2009-01-24 00:30 <ikks_> ncurses rules big time!!!!
2009-01-24 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> If I'm in this project long enough I'd definitely want to build an ncurses interface to tryton
2009-01-24 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> it would just make sense
2009-01-24 00:31 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah html/css kind of sucks though.
2009-01-24 00:31 <ikks_> The main problem in curses is utf-89
2009-01-24 00:31 <ikks_> utf-8
2009-01-24 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-24 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> I wonder what the roadmap is for that
2009-01-24 00:32 <ikks_> python has a nice curses integration.
2009-01-24 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> urxvt supports utf-8
2009-01-24 00:32 <ikks_> I'm using rxvt-unicode
2009-01-24 00:32 <ikks_> but I have issues with tabs and accents
2009-01-24 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> python has an OK curses integration... I've never used curses in C so I don't know, but it seems like there are some problems with coding
2009-01-24 00:33 <ikks_> encoding in C too :(
2009-01-24 00:33 <ikks_> But vim and mutt manages it in a sweet way
2009-01-24 00:33 <X0d_of_N0d> I need to start using mutt
2009-01-24 00:35 <ikks_> If you plan to use mutt, also look at mairix to find mail.
2009-01-24 00:35 <ikks_> ACTION loves mutt
2009-01-24 00:36 <X0d_of_N0d> one of my coworkers uses mutt, the other uses muttator on thunderbird
2009-01-24 00:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I'm trying to figure out how to get the system to do the same thing that you can do from the gtk client but via python.
2009-01-24 00:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Completely unrelated to UIs.
2009-01-24 00:37 <vengfulsquirrel> ha
2009-01-24 00:40 <X0d_of_N0d> I also hate the ui stuff because I'm not really sure how it should look in the first place
2009-01-24 00:43 <X0d_of_N0d> ikks_: so there is no gui designer for tryton, right?
2009-01-24 00:43 <X0d_of_N0d> ikks_: you just have to edit the xml by hand
2009-01-24 00:43 <ikks_> no X0d_of_N0d there isn't
2009-01-24 00:43 <ikks_> yep, that's the way
2009-01-24 00:52 -!- juanfer(n=juanfer@190.157.120.122) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 01:44 <X0d_of_N0d> is "toolbar" no longer in "tree"?
2009-01-24 01:59 <X0d_of_N0d> the caps lock key needs to be striken from the keyboard
2009-01-24 02:01 <vengfulsquirrel> definately
2009-01-24 02:27 <X0d_of_N0d> brb
2009-01-24 03:11 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Hey I have some more questions
2009-01-24 03:11 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-24 03:12 <vengfulsquirrel> Oh you are back
2009-01-24 03:12 <vengfulsquirrel> So ignoring configurable boms tell me if this sounds alright
2009-01-24 03:13 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-24 03:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Phantom boms have multiple inputs and have multiple outputs, during the explosion of a bom that references a phantom bom we must merge the inputs and ouputs of the phantom bom.
2009-01-24 03:13 <vengfulsquirrel> I propose we remove the phantom product from the outputs and push all the phantom bom's outputs into the current outputs.
2009-01-24 03:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Also all inputs to the phantom boms will be appeneded to the current inputs list.
2009-01-24 03:14 <vengfulsquirrel> My major question is how do you think we should handle bringing in phantom products from stock if for example a production order was unfinished?
2009-01-24 03:14 <X0d_of_N0d> wait...
2009-01-24 03:14 <X0d_of_N0d> bom input? you mean bom lines?
2009-01-24 03:14 <vengfulsquirrel> Sorry so a given bom has a list of inputs and a list of outputs.
2009-01-24 03:15 <X0d_of_N0d> a bom is a list of products used to produce another product (or, I guess, multiple products)
2009-01-24 03:16 <vengfulsquirrel> Yes
2009-01-24 03:16 <vengfulsquirrel> So if in that list of products there is a "phantom" subassembly/product then we need to merge it into the current bom at the start of a production so as to not require an additional production order.
2009-01-24 03:16 <vengfulsquirrel> Since it will be constructed on the production line, right ?
2009-01-24 03:17 <vengfulsquirrel> Ignore workcenters and routings for now.
2009-01-24 03:17 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, yeah
2009-01-24 03:18 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, that is kind of a trick....
2009-01-24 03:18 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-24 03:18 <vengfulsquirrel> So would you say bringing in phantom subassemblies from stock is kind of like the concept of WIP ?
2009-01-24 03:18 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-24 03:19 <vengfulsquirrel> Or is WIP more of like a partially completed single product.
2009-01-24 03:19 <vengfulsquirrel> Like a half painted car or something.
2009-01-24 03:19 <X0d_of_N0d> both
2009-01-24 03:19 <vengfulsquirrel> ha damn, well i have no idea how to handle a half painted car
2009-01-24 03:20 <vengfulsquirrel> that will have to be added later somehow
2009-01-24 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> a half painted car would be taken care of at the workcenter
2009-01-24 03:20 <vengfulsquirrel> right but i mean if you had to push it back into storage for some reason
2009-01-24 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> I would see it as producing nothing but using half the resources
2009-01-24 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> a half painted car....
2009-01-24 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-24 03:21 <vengfulsquirrel> oh okay, you mean since the product would already be in production
2009-01-24 03:21 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, if you need to stock it again then you need to do something external to the system
2009-01-24 03:21 <X0d_of_N0d> we just can't deal with that right now
2009-01-24 03:21 <vengfulsquirrel> great because i don't want to
2009-01-24 03:21 <vengfulsquirrel> anyways back to phantom boms then
2009-01-24 03:21 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm sure with time we could, but it's not a priority
2009-01-24 03:21 <vengfulsquirrel> does my problem make sense?
2009-01-24 03:22 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, but you don't need to care about it until we have workcenters
2009-01-24 03:22 <vengfulsquirrel> Or its not a problem its just an unsolved use-case.
2009-01-24 03:23 <X0d_of_N0d> users would need to manually put in how much stock they're returning. during this time all the phantoms could be listed.
2009-01-24 03:24 <vengfulsquirrel> You mean when a production goes unfinished?
2009-01-24 03:24 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-24 03:24 <vengfulsquirrel> During assignation I might need to implode parts of the bom to check for phantom products in stock, so maybe I can put a checkbox to do that at the Waiting state.
2009-01-24 03:25 <vengfulsquirrel> Do you think that would be fare enough ?
2009-01-24 03:25 <vengfulsquirrel> *fair
2009-01-24 03:25 <X0d_of_N0d> a checkbox at the waiting state?
2009-01-24 03:25 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-24 03:26 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I guess the waiting state is still controversial, but that is where i proposed having an automatic substitute checkbox as well.
2009-01-24 03:26 <X0d_of_N0d> I feel like states are things that should go into the database.....
2009-01-24 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> if it's not going to be saved inbetween draft and assigned then it doesn't need a state there
2009-01-24 03:27 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah they are, but they also reflect the user interface possiblities, similar to how you move a sale through multiple states.
2009-01-24 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> it's a process
2009-01-24 03:27 <vengfulsquirrel> It is going to be saved.
2009-01-24 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> I don't think it should be saved between draft and assigned
2009-01-24 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> if it can't be assigned it shouldn't go into some limbo state
2009-01-24 03:28 <X0d_of_N0d> it should go back to draft so you could do something else with it
2009-01-24 03:28 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay yeah its hard to explain in words
2009-01-24 03:28 <vengfulsquirrel> We need an entire itnerface for manually subsituting things into the bom
2009-01-24 03:29 <X0d_of_N0d> if that's going to be a UI thing then that's cool, maybe make a circle instead of a square
2009-01-24 03:29 <vengfulsquirrel> So I'm not sure where that would go
2009-01-24 03:29 <X0d_of_N0d> it would be a button on the bottom of the interface that would bring up a wizzard
2009-01-24 03:29 <X0d_of_N0d> "check for material availablily" or something
2009-01-24 03:31 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, that'd be kind of a complex ui thing to code given the current architecture, but I really think it's sort of the right way to do things
2009-01-24 03:34 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I just stole it from the packing paradigm of Draft->Waiting->Assigned->Done.
2009-01-24 03:34 <X0d_of_N0d> hum...
2009-01-24 03:34 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-24 03:35 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah do you think the wizard would be easier for the user?
2009-01-24 03:35 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: much...
2009-01-24 03:35 <X0d_of_N0d> it would be harder for us to code I think, but easier for the end user
2009-01-24 03:35 <X0d_of_N0d> and more logical
2009-01-24 03:35 <vengfulsquirrel> because it would seem more maleable ?
2009-01-24 03:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay, so when I click pay on an invoice and a dialog box pops up that is using wizards right ?
2009-01-24 03:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Whereas I was talking about making a state in a workflow.
2009-01-24 03:42 -!- X0d_of_N0d(i=user@gateway/tor/x-45f67d87babcf217) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> join #tryton
2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> hey
2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> (18:38:26) X0d_of_N0d: and more logical
2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> yes
2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> hehe
2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> (18:38:41) vengfulsquirrel: because it would seem more maleable ?
2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> (18:40:07) vengfulsquirrel: Okay, so when I click pay on an invoice and a dialog box pops up that is using wizards right ?
2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> (18:40:22) vengfulsquirrel: Whereas I was talking about making a state in a workflow.
2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-24 03:44 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-24 03:45 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah except I guess the waiting state in my workflow would become the user using the wizard.
2009-01-24 03:46 <vengfulsquirrel> I guess that might make sense
2009-01-24 03:46 <X0d_of_N0d> or maybe when you hit save it would check for the materials
2009-01-24 03:46 <X0d_of_N0d> and bring up a wizzard
2009-01-24 03:46 <X0d_of_N0d> exactly
2009-01-24 03:47 <X0d_of_N0d> cool
2009-01-24 03:47 <X0d_of_N0d> so, in order to avoid confusion, perhaps it would be wise to make the waiting box a circle or something to show it's different?
2009-01-24 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah okay well the wizard is going to need multiple states in itself
2009-01-24 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> *screens
2009-01-24 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> whatever you want to call it
2009-01-24 03:48 <X0d_of_N0d> you're thinking one for each subsitute?
2009-01-24 03:49 <X0d_of_N0d> well... what would be the screens?
2009-01-24 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> no, like explode the bom... that can be done at start i think, but then you need to choose if you want to auto allocate or auto pull phantoms
2009-01-24 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> so you check whatever
2009-01-24 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> and then click
2009-01-24 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> assign
2009-01-24 03:50 <X0d_of_N0d> erm...wait
2009-01-24 03:50 <X0d_of_N0d> auto allocate?
2009-01-24 03:50 <vengfulsquirrel> ha sorry so many words, assign
2009-01-24 03:50 <vengfulsquirrel> dammit no i mean substitute
2009-01-24 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> hehe, yeah
2009-01-24 03:51 <vengfulsquirrel> auto-substitute and auto-use-phantoms-from-storage
2009-01-24 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> lets just drop subsitution for right now
2009-01-24 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> I really think that should be for a later date
2009-01-24 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> later milestone
2009-01-24 03:52 <vengfulsquirrel> well then we don't even need a wizard pretty much
2009-01-24 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> it's easy to add on later, lets just not worry about it right now
2009-01-24 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> cool
2009-01-24 03:53 <vengfulsquirrel> but that seems to work better with my workflow plan
2009-01-24 03:53 <X0d_of_N0d> so then we really don't even have a waiting stage for milestone 1
2009-01-24 03:53 <X0d_of_N0d> ?
2009-01-24 03:54 <vengfulsquirrel> actually maybe not
2009-01-24 03:54 <vengfulsquirrel> either way
2009-01-24 03:54 <X0d_of_N0d> we'll worry about that in a later milestone
2009-01-24 03:54 <vengfulsquirrel> if you don't install the substitute module then ... wait no wizard is better
2009-01-24 03:55 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah okay so if you do install the substitute module we will make the assign=> button start a wizard
2009-01-24 03:55 <vengfulsquirrel> whereas now it will just go straight to assigned or fail
2009-01-24 03:55 <X0d_of_N0d> we won't do a substitute module, we'll just add it to the next rev of the mrp module
2009-01-24 03:55 <vengfulsquirrel> so we can just ignore it for now because that's how we will integrate it later, which is unobtusive
2009-01-24 03:56 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah exactly except i want to make sure it will cleanly fit in later
2009-01-24 03:56 <vengfulsquirrel> well sure enough
2009-01-24 03:56 <vengfulsquirrel> and that sounds fine ot me
2009-01-24 03:56 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-24 03:56 <vengfulsquirrel> *to
2009-01-24 03:56 <X0d_of_N0d> cool
2009-01-24 03:57 <vengfulsquirrel> wait except the phantom thing, what do you think about that
2009-01-24 03:57 <X0d_of_N0d> the phantom thing can't happen until we have WIP, so that's not something we can worry about now
2009-01-24 03:57 <X0d_of_N0d> just explode the bom and don't worry about it
2009-01-24 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> okay
2009-01-24 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> done and done
2009-01-24 04:00 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, one more thing
2009-01-24 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah i have a bunch more things actually
2009-01-24 04:00 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, also "done", in your workflow, doesn't need to be there. Once itmes are done the people who look at workorders don't care if things get moved to storage...
2009-01-24 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> i have to go soon though but go ahead
2009-01-24 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> hummm
2009-01-24 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> this is quick
2009-01-24 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> once you draft the moves the workorder is fulfilled
2009-01-24 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> that's it
2009-01-24 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm
2009-01-24 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah someone has to re-stock it right?
2009-01-24 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> Having draft moves attached to a finalized thing seems kind of awkward.
2009-01-24 04:02 <X0d_of_N0d> right, but the guys who look at workorders don't have to restock it
2009-01-24 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah but the workorders will all be marked done
2009-01-24 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> the parent production order just wouldn't be done
2009-01-24 04:03 <X0d_of_N0d> hum.....
2009-01-24 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> hmm yeah okay i'll look at that
2009-01-24 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> Someone asked for that
2009-01-24 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> and it made sense to me
2009-01-24 04:04 <X0d_of_N0d> cool
2009-01-24 04:04 <X0d_of_N0d> also, I think unfinished should be marked as "canceled" in the db... just imho
2009-01-24 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah i think that is right, except maybe unfinished goes to canceled
2009-01-24 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> that's the same problem as above though
2009-01-24 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> gotta work out that draft orders thing
2009-01-24 04:06 <X0d_of_N0d> right
2009-01-24 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> but something that was unfinished will maybe take different outputs
2009-01-24 04:06 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-01-24 04:06 <X0d_of_N0d> so you said you had some stuff you need?
2009-01-24 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah crap where do i write all this down though
2009-01-24 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> i wish the mrp document had like an associated scratch pad
2009-01-24 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> i guess it'll be in the log
2009-01-24 04:07 <vengfulsquirrel> i'll review it tomorrow, yeah my problem is
2009-01-24 04:07 <vengfulsquirrel> for the configurable bom
2009-01-24 04:08 <vengfulsquirrel> i was thinking you could associate a list of by-products with each configurable bom input and those would be thrown into the outputs when those bom lines were selected
2009-01-24 04:09 <vengfulsquirrel> Actually here is a simpler solution
2009-01-24 04:09 <X0d_of_N0d> hum
2009-01-24 04:09 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, ok
2009-01-24 04:09 <vengfulsquirrel> A configurable bom has a list of by-product outputs(independent of any configuration) and once the bom is configured all the outputs can be added or removed.
2009-01-24 04:10 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION doesn't think configurable boms should have multiple outputs
2009-01-24 04:10 <vengfulsquirrel> The system will still work just for weird configurable boms that might make differing by-products you'll have a hard time configuring tons of them.
2009-01-24 04:10 <X0d_of_N0d> a configurable bom should be a list of components that are purchased or manufactured
2009-01-24 04:11 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah, but what about the outputs? There will probably be by-products, at least, right ?
2009-01-24 04:11 <X0d_of_N0d> by products should only be produced during the manufacturing of components from raw materials
2009-01-24 04:11 <vengfulsquirrel> oh
2009-01-24 04:11 <vengfulsquirrel> i see
2009-01-24 04:12 <vengfulsquirrel> okay so single output then you think ?
2009-01-24 04:12 <X0d_of_N0d> as far as I'm concerned if you have a configurable bom with by-products you'd put that in a normal bom, then put the normal bom in a configurable bom
2009-01-24 04:12 <X0d_of_N0d> so yeah
2009-01-24 04:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay yeah sorry if I'm off sometimes, I'm kind of fighting thin air
2009-01-24 04:13 <vengfulsquirrel> So that sounds great because it super simplifies everything
2009-01-24 04:14 <vengfulsquirrel> you can't make more than one output and that output is chosen when configuring the configurable bom.
2009-01-24 04:14 <X0d_of_N0d> cool
2009-01-24 04:15 <vengfulsquirrel> i think phantom boms could probably still work correctly in that situation
2009-01-24 04:15 <X0d_of_N0d> right... except potential multiple outputs made by children of the configurable bom
2009-01-24 04:15 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah but that's fine we don't deal with that until production line time
2009-01-24 04:16 <vengfulsquirrel> hopefully that makes sense
2009-01-24 04:17 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-01-24 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> okay great so i think i'm ready soon to start breaking ground
2009-01-24 04:18 <X0d_of_N0d> sweet
2009-01-24 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> or at least make way more detailed designs
2009-01-24 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> maybe start talking about the db and stuff
2009-01-24 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> gotta run for now though
2009-01-24 04:19 <vengfulsquirrel> thanks for the help, i'll talk to you next week
2009-01-24 04:19 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, talk to you monday probably
2009-01-24 04:19 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah sounds good
2009-01-24 04:19 <vengfulsquirrel> later
2009-01-24 04:19 <X0d_of_N0d> np, later
2009-01-24 05:20 -!- yangoon(n=mathiasb@p549F5C6D.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 05:36 -!- ikks(n=igor@190.12.153.202) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 07:35 -!- Frank159_(n=chatzill@pD9E63563.dip.t-dialin.net) has left #tryton
2009-01-24 08:48 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 09:05 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 09:09 -!- Gedd(n=ged@77.109.114.26.adsl.dyn.edpnet.net) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 09:21 -!- enlightx(n=enlightx@host-84-221-85-222.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 09:41 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-768acd54bec2b78c) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 12:22 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 12:38 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 12:46 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 13:38 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 16:49 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-26b20177a2f7d72b) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 16:50 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-b41c644d4aa8cf97) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 17:35 <CIA-8> tryton: matb roundup * #697/Sort order of almost all tables under Administration doesn't respect translation: [chatting] The issue is partiallly solved. There are 2 remaining issues: 1) As you can see on search_inv.png, untranslated items (name Invoice) ...
2009-01-24 17:37 <yangoon> cedk: are you around?
2009-01-24 17:42 <cedk> yangoon: yes
2009-01-24 17:43 <yangoon> cedk: I need a little help getting report overrides working
2009-01-24 17:44 <yangoon> cedk: I don't understand exactly, what I have to do for https://bugs.tryton.org/roundup/issue657
2009-01-24 17:44 <cedk> yangoon: you must make like a new report
2009-01-24 17:45 <yangoon> cedk: but is it enough to define in xml?
2009-01-24 17:45 <cedk> yangoon: yes
2009-01-24 17:46 <yangoon> cedk: then it just doesn't work for me in respect to https://bugs.tryton.org/roundup/issue657
2009-01-24 17:47 <yangoon> cedk: because src strings of report, that overrides, are still shown belonging to module, that is overridden
2009-01-24 17:47 <cedk> yangoon: you must not override
2009-01-24 17:48 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.86.139) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 17:55 <yangoon> cedk: just tried again with invoice.xml like http://paste.pocoo.org/show/101145/
2009-01-24 17:56 <yangoon> doesn't work
2009-01-24 17:58 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 18:00 <cedk> yangoon: this is because you override and not create a new one
2009-01-24 18:11 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.86.139) has left #tryton
2009-01-24 18:11 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.86.139) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 19:48 <CIA-8> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 1482:83a97e60fcc8 trytond/trytond/osv/orm.py: Add missing fuzzy test in _where_calc and _order_calc for issue697
2009-01-24 19:48 <CIA-8> tryton: ced roundup * #697/Sort order of almost all tables under Administration doesn't respect translation: [resolved] Fix with changeset 83a97e60fcc8
2009-01-24 20:09 <yangoon> cedk I think I got it now, but there is one thing
2009-01-24 20:09 <yangoon> cedk: the print wizard for invoice has to find the internal name 'account.invoice'
2009-01-24 20:10 <yangoon> cedk: so this field has to be the same for the new report
2009-01-24 20:10 <yangoon> cedk: but there is a unique key on this field preventing the import of a second definition with this internal name
2009-01-24 20:11 <yangoon> cedk: removing the unique key makes it work for me
2009-01-24 20:14 <cedk> yangoon: ok, I will remove it
2009-01-24 20:19 <yangoon> cedk: ok, thx, it is ir_action_report_report_name_uniq UNIQUE(report_name)
2009-01-24 20:38 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-71-202-125-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 20:53 -!- carlos(n=carlos@248.Red-83-39-84.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 21:01 <CIA-8> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 1483:2c02e7aa0f5b trytond/trytond/sql_db.py: Add drop_constraint
2009-01-24 21:01 <CIA-8> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 1484:61c4f969bc09 trytond/trytond/ir/action.py: Remove report_name_uniq constraint on ir.action.report
2009-01-24 21:24 <cedk> yangoon: done
2009-01-24 21:24 <yangoon> yes, great
2009-01-24 21:28 <CIA-8> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 172:5439ae892af4 gentoo-overlay/dev-python/relatorio/ (Manifest relatorio-0.5.0.ebuild): Version bump
2009-01-24 21:31 -!- gremly(n=oscar@190.156.157.155) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 21:52 <yangoon> cedk: if I want to set the old report to inactive I get always: WARNING:init:Field active of 293@ir.action.report not updated (id: report_invoice), because it has changed since the last update
2009-01-24 21:52 <yangoon> cedk: which way do I have to go, if I want to disable the old report?
2009-01-24 21:53 <bechamel> yangoon: this mean that the record in the db is not the same that was imported the first time, i.e. it was changed by a user
2009-01-24 21:53 <bechamel> yangoon: and the code that import xml try to not overwrite user modifications
2009-01-24 21:54 <bechamel> yangoon: the easiest think to do is just to remove the record (has long as there is not other records poiting to it), and update all
2009-01-24 21:54 <yangoon> bechamel: I tried to remove all write_date and write_uid manually from the records, nevertheless the same message
2009-01-24 21:55 <yangoon> bechamel: from what does tryton decide, if a record has changed?
2009-01-24 21:55 <bechamel> yangoon: it's not enouhg the imported values are stored in a table (ir_model_data)
2009-01-24 21:55 <yangoon> ok, thx!
2009-01-24 21:55 <bechamel> yangoon: if the actual record is not the same that the corresponding values in this table the record is not updated
2009-01-24 21:56 <yangoon> bechamel: so what do I have to do, it always possible that a user has changed the record
2009-01-24 21:56 <bechamel> yangoon: I never tried to remove records directly in ir_model_data but it should work
2009-01-24 21:56 <bechamel> yangoon: ?
2009-01-24 21:57 <yangoon> bechamel: if I want to set the old report to inactive
2009-01-24 21:58 <bechamel> yangoon: I think you cannot set the record to inactive because it was modified in the meanwhile with your tests
2009-01-24 21:58 <yangoon> bechamel: yes, that's it
2009-01-24 21:59 <bechamel> yangoon: but it should work
2009-01-24 21:59 <yangoon> bechamel: but this can happen always
2009-01-24 21:59 <yangoon> bechamel: provided the case, a user gets a module later and he has already worked on those records
2009-01-24 21:59 <bechamel> yangoon: yes, the best is not to change data "by hand" on thedb
2009-01-24 22:00 <yangoon> bechamel: how can I
2009-01-24 22:00 <bechamel> yangoon: in this case you only want to put active on an existing record
2009-01-24 22:00 <yangoon> sorry, provide on a first time import of the new module
2009-01-24 22:00 <yangoon> yes, ecactly
2009-01-24 22:01 <yangoon> sorry, relly slow on the keyboard today...
2009-01-24 22:01 <bechamel> yangoon: so just add a record with active false on the xml of your custom module, I think there is an example like that somewhere, let me chack
2009-01-24 22:03 <bechamel> yangoon: look this: http://hg.tryton.org/hgwebdir.cgi/modules/stock/file/19568e8d5cb8/stock.xml#l21
2009-01-24 22:03 <yangoon> bechamel: many thx
2009-01-24 22:03 <bechamel> yangoon: and: http://pastebin.com/m765be16d
2009-01-24 22:04 <bechamel> yangoon: it's actualy the opposite of what you want, the original record is set with active="0"
2009-01-24 22:04 <bechamel> yangoon: and the xml snippet "activate" the record
2009-01-24 22:05 <yangoon> bechamel: yes I see, trying at once
2009-01-24 22:09 <bechamel> yangoon: take care of the id of the record it's important to give the id of the record you want to overwrite prefixed with the name of the module it comes from.
2009-01-24 22:09 <yangoon> bechamel: yes, just ran into the trap
2009-01-24 22:09 <yangoon> bechamel: ;)
2009-01-24 22:12 <yangoon> bechamel: I now have http://pastebin.com/m64fc310
2009-01-24 22:13 <yangoon> bechamel: but get always the same warning
2009-01-24 22:13 <yangoon> do I work on the wrong table?
2009-01-24 22:14 <bechamel> yangoon: the warning is "not updated ... because it has changed since the last update" ?
2009-01-24 22:14 <yangoon> bechamel: yes
2009-01-24 22:15 <bechamel> yangoon: I will test here
2009-01-24 22:15 <yangoon> bechamel: ok, thx
2009-01-24 22:18 <bechamel> yangoon: i have the same error :) i don't remember how the code i gave you work correctly
2009-01-24 22:18 <yangoon> bechamel: puuh:)
2009-01-24 22:28 -!- oversize(n=manuel@94.219.105.90) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 22:32 <yangoon> bechamel: I think, there is also a bug in updating timestamps in ir_model_data
2009-01-24 22:32 <yangoon> bechamel: when I am updating account_invoice, ir_model_data.write_date and ir_model_data.date_update are set to the actual date
2009-01-24 22:33 <yangoon> bechamel: when I am updating my custom module with the new report, the dates are not updated
2009-01-24 22:33 <bechamel> yangoon: and what is the bug ? you mean that the timestamps shouldn't be changed ?
2009-01-24 22:34 <yangoon> bechamel: don't know, either it should be changed in both cases or in none
2009-01-24 22:34 <yangoon> bechamel: and always ir_model_data.write_date < ir_model_data.date_update
2009-01-24 22:35 <yangoon> bechamel: so I don't know, how tryton evaluates "...changes since the last update..."
2009-01-24 22:36 <bechamel> yangoon: date_update is not used actualy ...
2009-01-24 22:36 <yangoon> bechamel: perhaps just evaluating write_date not null?
2009-01-24 22:36 <yangoon> bechamel: ok
2009-01-24 22:41 <bechamel> yangoon: i don't see how the xml I gave you works, it's crazy how am i able to forget this kind of stuff
2009-01-24 22:41 <yangoon> bechamel: :D
2009-01-24 22:41 <yangoon> bechamel: and I get still the warning after deleting the records from ir_model_data
2009-01-24 22:42 <bechamel> yangoon: yesn and it's the normal behaviour
2009-01-24 22:42 <yangoon> bechamel: seems to me, that it probably should work, but that some bug was introduced meanwhile
2009-01-24 22:46 <bechamel> yangoon: No it's working, but i don't how
2009-01-24 22:53 <yangoon> bechamel: thx anyway, have to eat sth. now, cu later
2009-01-24 22:57 -!- ikks(i=igor@190.102.215.179) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 23:28 <vengfulsquirrel> Does anyone think someone would want to use BOMs only without any sort of production order process ? Maybe for some sort of accounting purpose?
2009-01-24 23:33 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: it may be useful if the 'production' is very light or made in front of customers , like in a restaurant or a gift shop (to wrap object in paper), ...
2009-01-24 23:34 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: or maybe for promotion, "free mouse if you buy the laptop" (the package is a product by itself)
2009-01-24 23:35 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: but i'm not shure if it must be handled with bom
2009-01-24 23:35 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah that's a different idea, although that one is useful
2009-01-24 23:36 <vengfulsquirrel> that's more of a like a product kit
2009-01-24 23:37 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: yes a kit. I think it's managed with bom in openerp
2009-01-24 23:38 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I think that's a little weird because its like a marketing idea.
2009-01-24 23:40 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: it you only manage sale and purchase, a bom is not necessary. But inventory stuff need to which are real products in the kit
2009-01-24 23:41 <bechamel> sorry: ... need to _know_ which ...
2009-01-24 23:44 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah seems like that would be a modification between the sale and the packing generation
2009-01-24 23:45 -!- igor__(i=igor@190.102.205.198) has joined #tryton
2009-01-24 23:47 <vengfulsquirrel> I was thinking about putting simple BOMs, production orders and simple production order processing into the same module.
2009-01-24 23:49 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: you plan to have distincts object production orders (simple and not simple) ?
2009-01-24 23:49 <vengfulsquirrel> What do you mean ?
2009-01-24 23:50 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: ok I misread, i did not see the "processing" word
2009-01-24 23:51 <vengfulsquirrel> Oh right by that I just mean no shop floor control, it just helps you handle your stock.
2009-01-24 23:53 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: yes and this module should be easily extendable to handle more complex cases
2009-01-24 23:55 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah hopefully, i'm kind of worried about some things not extending very well but we have to start somewhere

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!