IRC logs of #tryton for Friday, 2009-02-20 #tryton log beginning Fri Feb 20 00:00:02 CET 2009
2009-02-20 00:32 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: hey do you have a minute now?
2009-02-20 00:42 <X0d_of_N0d> yeh, just got back from lunch
2009-02-20 00:42 <X0d_of_N0d> sup?
2009-02-20 00:47 <vengfulsquirrel> Can we go over one more time the purpose of bom revisions ? Ha I know its like beating a dead horse.
2009-02-20 00:50 <vengfulsquirrel> Right now I was thinking bom's have a valid_from and valid_to date and are readonly once they are moved from Draft to Done.
2009-02-20 00:50 <vengfulsquirrel> Additionally if you can clone an invalid/valid BOM to start a new BOM and there are multiple BOMs already that can be chosen from... what more is there to revisioning than just connecting one bom to its parent when its cloned ?
2009-02-20 00:54 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: ^ (always forget to use labels)
2009-02-20 01:03 -!- tekknokrat( has left #tryton
2009-02-20 01:20 <X0d_of_N0d> sorry I was away...
2009-02-20 01:22 <X0d_of_N0d> I actually found out that our company uses boms in a different way than my boss had described to me, so I'm actually a little confused right now myself
2009-02-20 01:23 <vengfulsquirrel> ha terrific
2009-02-20 01:23 <X0d_of_N0d> lol
2009-02-20 01:23 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah
2009-02-20 01:23 <X0d_of_N0d> lemme
2009-02-20 01:23 <X0d_of_N0d> lemme think about this for a sec
2009-02-20 01:23 <vengfulsquirrel> I'm designing myself into oblivion
2009-02-20 01:26 <X0d_of_N0d> bom revisions allow for historical review for one...
2009-02-20 01:26 <X0d_of_N0d> but as far as I can tell at this point, the way we use it here, it's mainly for historical record...
2009-02-20 01:27 <X0d_of_N0d> however it could be used for product tracking in crm... but I think what you've described would work with all that
2009-02-20 01:29 <vengfulsquirrel> Well do you think the explicit linking is even necessary?
2009-02-20 01:30 <X0d_of_N0d> between a cloned bom... I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about there.
2009-02-20 01:30 <vengfulsquirrel> So like say you have a bom for a product right.
2009-02-20 01:30 <vengfulsquirrel> And you say well we can't use part X anymore
2009-02-20 01:30 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-02-20 01:30 <vengfulsquirrel> We can only buy part Y now
2009-02-20 01:31 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-02-20 01:31 <vengfulsquirrel> So you go to SOME interface and select the bom that is using part X and click clone
2009-02-20 01:31 <vengfulsquirrel> and that fills out a new bom but that is in state DRAFT
2009-02-20 01:31 <X0d_of_N0d> that
2009-02-20 01:31 <vengfulsquirrel> and you change out X with Y
2009-02-20 01:31 <vengfulsquirrel> and then you move it to state DONE
2009-02-20 01:31 <vengfulsquirrel> and then you invalidate the bom with part X
2009-02-20 01:31 <X0d_of_N0d> that would be a revision
2009-02-20 01:31 <X0d_of_N0d> well...hum
2009-02-20 01:32 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, ok, I see
2009-02-20 01:33 <vengfulsquirrel> I feel like revisioning beyond that kind of parent/child linking is excessive unless there is some government mandate. If its for convenience you can always go back and look at the hiearchy using the parent/children relationships.
2009-02-20 01:34 <X0d_of_N0d> the link between those two would be maintained in an ECR system, which is outside the realm of this module
2009-02-20 01:34 <vengfulsquirrel> What is an ECR system?
2009-02-20 01:35 <X0d_of_N0d> well, actually plm... ecr would be part of it
2009-02-20 01:35 <X0d_of_N0d> product lifecycle managment
2009-02-20 01:36 <X0d_of_N0d> basically you don't need to worry about it
2009-02-20 01:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Ha right, okay well I think we could trivially add a draft editable parent bom field that could be used for history just for convenience
2009-02-20 01:37 <vengfulsquirrel> and it would just be set to NULL if the parent is deleted of course
2009-02-20 01:37 <X0d_of_N0d> ok
2009-02-20 01:37 <vengfulsquirrel> nothing restrictive
2009-02-20 01:38 <vengfulsquirrel> okay cool problem solved
2009-02-20 01:40 <vengfulsquirrel> Now I just have to resolve the inventory allocation issue and go over some stuff with cedk.
2009-02-20 01:41 <X0d_of_N0d> inventory allocation issue?
2009-02-20 01:42 <vengfulsquirrel> well more like when and what moves should be created
2009-02-20 01:44 <vengfulsquirrel> I think I need to find a way to factor out the "putting away" the results of production because you and cedk both haven't liked it. I feel like it should be addressed somewhere though.
2009-02-20 01:47 <vengfulsquirrel> There are all still in the planning stage and there are a lot of innaccuracies:
2009-02-20 01:47 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-02-20 01:47 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-02-20 01:47 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-02-20 01:47 <vengfulsquirrel> *These are
2009-02-20 02:17 <vengfulsquirrel> bbl
2009-02-20 03:34 -!- vengfulsquirrel( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 05:20 -!- yangoon( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 07:34 -!- bechamel(n=user@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 07:39 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 07:43 -!- sharkcz( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 07:47 -!- X0d_of_N0d( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 08:00 -!- Gedd(n=ged@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 08:50 -!- carlos(n=carlos@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 09:27 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 09:37 -!- tekknokrat( has left #tryton
2009-02-20 09:41 -!- simahawk( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 09:41 -!- simahawk( has left #tryton
2009-02-20 09:47 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 10:23 <udono> cedk: good morning
2009-02-20 10:23 <udono> cedk: did you take a look at ldap_base module?
2009-02-20 10:23 <cedk> udono: quickly
2009-02-20 10:23 <udono> ACTION remember cedk did
2009-02-20 10:24 <udono> cedk: I have a little problem with States and on_change
2009-02-20 10:25 <udono> cedk: On ldap_server we have an anonymous bind checkbox. On change this to true Bind DN and Password should be deleted and set to readonly.
2009-02-20 10:26 <udono> cedk: this works so far, when there are some values inside, they are deleted. But on save the record, the old values from before are inserted.
2009-02-20 10:26 <cedk> udono: because readonly value are not sended by the client
2009-02-20 10:27 <udono>
2009-02-20 10:27 <udono> cedk: ah, ok.
2009-02-20 10:28 <udono> cedk: so I need to remove the readonly
2009-02-20 10:28 <cedk> udono: I think it is better to hide the fields
2009-02-20 10:29 <udono> cedk: that's another option. Thanks
2009-02-20 10:29 <cedk> udono: and if you want to remove the value in the database, override write and add those fields
2009-02-20 10:30 <udono> cedk: yes. With this Iam able to let readonly stay?
2009-02-20 10:31 <cedk> udono: yes
2009-02-20 10:31 <cedk> udono: but I think more about any security issue to let the password in the database when the user think it was removed
2009-02-20 10:32 <udono> ACTION dislike hide often, because it makes jump/hop the view
2009-02-20 10:33 <udono> cedk: yes, agree. If someone deletes a password, it needed to delete in database, too.
2009-02-20 11:15 -!- nicoe( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 11:17 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 11:17 -!- tekknokrat( has left #tryton
2009-02-20 11:28 -!- bechamel(n=user@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 11:30 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 12:18 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 12:32 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 13:23 -!- ikks_(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 13:25 <CIA-10> tryton: matb roundup * #797/Payment of invoices: always marked paid after Write-Off: [new] Supposed you have an invoice for 500,-. - make a payment for 100,-, ok - make a Write-Off for 100,- ok but now invoice is set to state paid ...
2009-02-20 13:59 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 14:03 <cristi_an> when a report is done
2009-02-20 14:03 <cristi_an> what is the mechanism ?
2009-02-20 14:04 <cristi_an> i mean if i have to print an invoice
2009-02-20 14:04 <cristi_an> the report is constructed locally ?
2009-02-20 14:04 <cristi_an> or the request is passed on server and the report is build there and i get the pdf from server
2009-02-20 14:05 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 14:07 -!- yangoon( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 14:23 -!- simahawk( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 14:24 -!- simahawk( has left #tryton
2009-02-20 14:25 <cristi_an> udono: do you know ?
2009-02-20 14:25 <udono> cristi_an: yes, I know
2009-02-20 14:26 <udono> cristi_an: see inside module party e.g. there is the odt-template for the labels report on party.
2009-02-20 14:27 <udono> trytond takes this report template odt and fill in all variables (this works over relatorio and genshi as template language)
2009-02-20 14:29 <cristi_an> udono: thx...
2009-02-20 14:29 <cristi_an> udono: so this is done on server side...
2009-02-20 14:30 <udono> cristi_an: then trytond deliver the odt-report to the client. The client opens the odt with an application able to handle odf.
2009-02-20 14:30 <udono> cristi_an: yes.
2009-02-20 14:30 <cristi_an> hmm not very optimal i say
2009-02-20 14:31 <cristi_an> for all situattions
2009-02-20 14:31 <cristi_an> but i will take a look to undestand better
2009-02-20 14:31 <udono> cristi_an: I like it a lot. The best reportparser I've seen. Thanks to nicoe and Gedd from openhex
2009-02-20 14:32 <nicoe> ACTION blushes
2009-02-20 14:33 <udono> cristi_an: the pdf creation is a little bit advanced. There you need an openoffice-headless installation on the serversite. And the module openoffice.interact from htgoebel. Then the tryton server pipes the parsed document to openoffice and receives the pdf. The pdf is then sended to the client...
2009-02-20 14:33 <cristi_an> udono: w8 :)
2009-02-20 14:34 <cristi_an> so you mentioned : realtorio,genshi,reportparser from open hex,openoffice,htgoebel
2009-02-20 14:34 <cristi_an> all this for reporting
2009-02-20 14:35 <Gedd> ACTION blushes too :)
2009-02-20 14:38 <cristi_an> why tryoton do not use elixir ?
2009-02-20 14:38 <cristi_an> (just look ever openhex site)
2009-02-20 14:39 <cristi_an> Gedd: OpenHexperience IS SOMETHING LIEK OPENOBJECT OR TRYTON BASE ?
2009-02-20 14:39 <cristi_an> sorry for caps
2009-02-20 14:39 <Gedd> cristi_an: yep
2009-02-20 14:39 <cristi_an> wow
2009-02-20 14:39 <cristi_an> Gedd: and withg sql alcehmy
2009-02-20 14:39 <cristi_an> i hope
2009-02-20 14:39 <Gedd> yes
2009-02-20 14:39 <cristi_an> hehe
2009-02-20 14:39 <Gedd> elixir/SA
2009-02-20 14:39 <cristi_an> sounds ..niceeee
2009-02-20 14:40 <cristi_an> yee
2009-02-20 14:40 <cristi_an> meaning any db engine
2009-02-20 14:40 <cristi_an> behind ?
2009-02-20 14:40 <cristi_an> not tight up on postgress
2009-02-20 14:41 <Gedd> yes
2009-02-20 14:42 <cristi_an> and ...what is the status of that ?
2009-02-20 14:42 <Gedd> hard to say
2009-02-20 14:42 <cristi_an> is in project phase not code at all /
2009-02-20 14:42 <cristi_an> ?
2009-02-20 14:42 <Gedd> no, we have lots of code already
2009-02-20 14:43 <Gedd> it's been in development for a while
2009-02-20 14:43 <Gedd> see
2009-02-20 14:43 <Gedd> but it's not yet ready for public consumption
2009-02-20 14:44 <Gedd> maybe we should discuss this on another channel
2009-02-20 14:44 <cristi_an> i see
2009-02-20 14:44 <cristi_an> and the ideea is the same
2009-02-20 14:44 <cristi_an> like a client that act like a browser (a thin client)
2009-02-20 14:44 <cristi_an> much of the logic on server side ?
2009-02-20 14:44 <Gedd> yes
2009-02-20 14:44 <cristi_an> destop clinet ?
2009-02-20 14:44 <cristi_an> and web or wer cleint ?
2009-02-20 14:45 <Gedd> for now the most complete client is the web one
2009-02-20 14:45 <Gedd> but even that one isn't full-featured yet
2009-02-20 14:46 <Gedd> nicoe is currently working on a gtk client too
2009-02-20 14:46 -!- igor__(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 14:47 <cristi_an> btw relatorio is used by open erp as well ?
2009-02-20 14:49 <nicoe> cristi_an, they should but they wont
2009-02-20 14:49 <nicoe> :)
2009-02-20 14:50 <cristi_an> Gedd: teniis ?
2009-02-20 14:50 <cristi_an> :)
2009-02-20 14:51 <cristi_an> i bet i give you 6-0 ,0-6,7-6
2009-02-20 14:51 -!- enlightx_( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 14:51 <udono> cristi_an: relatorio, genshi, openoffice.interact and openoffice is even a better reporting engine than e.g. jasper reports ever can be - for office solutions.
2009-02-20 14:52 <cristi_an> pardon me jasper is quite ok...
2009-02-20 14:52 <cristi_an> if this is better then i am happy...
2009-02-20 14:52 <cristi_an> depsite jasper is very very mature
2009-02-20 14:52 <cristi_an> i used it since 2003
2009-02-20 14:53 <Gedd> udono: it's nice to see someone so enthusiastic, but aren't you exaggerating a bit?
2009-02-20 14:54 <udono> cristi_an: Is jasper reports able generate presentations, spreatsheets, textdocuments, odf, ods, odt, dox, docx, xls or latexdocuments?
2009-02-20 14:55 <cristi_an> many types...of docs
2009-02-20 14:55 <cristi_an> you can do anything with it (it is done by a romanian guy :) )
2009-02-20 14:56 <cristi_an> bte open erp what is usign for reports ?
2009-02-20 14:56 <udono> cristi_an: sw2rml2pdf
2009-02-20 14:57 <udono> srry sxw2rml2pdf
2009-02-20 14:57 <cristi_an> have no clue what is that...
2009-02-20 14:57 <cristi_an> i assume not as good as relatorio
2009-02-20 14:57 <udono> cristi_an: with lost of format informations
2009-02-20 14:57 <carlos> cristi_an: they use StarOffice documents as the base
2009-02-20 14:57 <carlos> then convert it to rml file format which is an old report format with many limitations
2009-02-20 14:58 <udono> cristi_an: they use an intermediate format called rml report markup language
2009-02-20 14:58 <carlos> and from there, they convert it to PDF
2009-02-20 14:58 <udono> cristi_an: can you create jasperreports in openoffice?
2009-02-20 14:58 <cristi_an> Gedd: when you desing you gtk client
2009-02-20 14:58 <carlos> at least, from my own experience, it's a hell...
2009-02-20 14:58 <cristi_an> make possbile to generate reports on client
2009-02-20 14:59 <carlos> cristi_an: however, they seem to have now a module that uses jasper
2009-02-20 14:59 <carlos> but not in the core
2009-02-20 14:59 <Gedd> carlos: from my experience, RML is a good report format. The problem is the conversion from sxw to RML which is flaky
2009-02-20 14:59 <cristi_an> udono: no
2009-02-20 14:59 <carlos> Gedd: it may be the problem
2009-02-20 14:59 <Gedd> cristi_an: why?
2009-02-20 15:00 <cristi_an> Gedd: there are a lot of situatuin where this round trip of data is not necessary
2009-02-20 15:00 <cristi_an> assume you print an invoice
2009-02-20 15:00 <cristi_an> you have all data on client side
2009-02-20 15:00 <cristi_an> why not to generate the invoice there
2009-02-20 15:00 <cristi_an> without this roundtrip
2009-02-20 15:00 <cristi_an> of getting the pds
2009-02-20 15:00 <cristi_an> pdf
2009-02-20 15:01 <carlos> cristi_an: because you then need to move the logic from the server to the client...
2009-02-20 15:01 <udono> cristi_an: so using relatorio, genshi, openoffice.interact and openoffice uses only one known application for creating templates AND creating the final documents: OpenOffice
2009-02-20 15:02 <carlos> cristi_an: with relatorio the only difference is who generates the PDF, either the server or the client using OpenOffice
2009-02-20 15:02 <cristi_an> i see
2009-02-20 15:02 <carlos> and all the logic to fill the OpenOffice document is in a single place, the server
2009-02-20 15:03 <Gedd> because 1) the client *might* have out of date information 2) you'd have to bundle a hell of a lot of things with the client, and that'd make installing the client a pain 3) there is no real roundtrip for the data (it doesn't come from the client). The only "issue" is the download time of the generated report. In most situations, this is not an issue.
2009-02-20 15:03 <cristi_an> Gedd: thx...whole my life i built fat clients Swing + Jdbc
2009-02-20 15:03 <cristi_an> so i have ion my blood some habbits :)
2009-02-20 15:04 <cristi_an> it makes sens what you and carlos said + uduno
2009-02-20 15:05 <udono> Gedd: the german accountlist has 250 pages. The parsing part takes just some seconds, but opening the document in openoffice clientsite takes a minute :-)
2009-02-20 15:05 <cristi_an> a 250 ,500 pages doc opening in jasper take the same more then 1 min
2009-02-20 15:05 <cristi_an> 250-500
2009-02-20 15:06 <udono> cristi_an: on the CeBIT exibition I will try out how long it takes as pdf...
2009-02-20 15:07 <cristi_an> ypu go to CeBit
2009-02-20 15:07 <cristi_an> ?
2009-02-20 15:07 <cristi_an> as firm to sell you services etc ... ?
2009-02-20 15:07 <Timitos> cristi_an: Tryton can be seen on cebit:
2009-02-20 15:08 <udono> cristi_an: yes, yangoon, Timitos, bechamel and me are on the cebit with Tryton :-)
2009-02-20 15:08 <udono> cristi_an: you like a ticket and meet us?
2009-02-20 15:08 <udono> anyone like tickets for the cebit?
2009-02-20 15:08 <cristi_an> i would like to go there to meet you
2009-02-20 15:08 <cristi_an> but time....
2009-02-20 15:09 <cristi_an> but being on cebit is really gr8 for tryton
2009-02-20 15:10 <cristi_an> the only drawback on that only 2 persons know the core...and sicen docs there are a few realted to this...
2009-02-20 15:10 <cristi_an> if they leave,or who knwos....
2009-02-20 15:11 <cristi_an> the project is too dependent on them....
2009-02-20 15:11 <cristi_an> so no plan for docs related to core ?
2009-02-20 15:11 <udono> cristi_an: see trytond/doc
2009-02-20 15:12 <Timitos> cristi_an: so lets support cedk and bechamel. if they have work with tryton they won´t leave the project. and with time there will be some more people knowing the core
2009-02-20 15:12 <cristi_an> Timitos: that is my only fear...
2009-02-20 15:12 <cristi_an> i hoep you are right
2009-02-20 15:13 <udono> cristi_an: So we have two more persons knowing the core then some other known projects ;-)
2009-02-20 15:13 <yangoon> udono: :D
2009-02-20 15:14 <cristi_an> udono: you master core ?
2009-02-20 15:14 <cristi_an> that is excellent
2009-02-20 15:14 <udono> cristi_an: me? no I am just stupid
2009-02-20 15:15 <cristi_an> udono: common don;t play the modest role
2009-02-20 15:15 <cristi_an> i just want to know if ai can rely on something....
2009-02-20 15:15 <udono> cristi_an: but cedk and bechamel are two more persons than other known projects have.
2009-02-20 15:15 <cristi_an> on a stable base (foundation)
2009-02-20 15:16 <udono> cristi_an: like you say with the cebit, it's a matter of time to master the core
2009-02-20 15:16 <udono> cristi_an: I know module API well and some three monts client coding.
2009-02-20 15:16 <cristi_an> "but cedk and bechamel are two more persons than other known projects have" ?
2009-02-20 15:17 <cristi_an> udono: that is exceleny
2009-02-20 16:23 -!- ikks_(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 17:00 -!- ikks(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 17:02 -!- ikks_(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 17:30 -!- igor__(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 17:59 -!- ikks(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 18:37 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 18:50 <CIA-10> tryton: ced roundup * #797/Payment of invoices: always marked paid after Write-Off: [need-eg] How do you make a write-off 100 ?
2009-02-20 19:05 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 19:41 -!- paola( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 19:43 <CIA-10> tryton: Timitos roundup * #798/patch for moving price computation of invoice into product.product: [new] as discussed with cedk yesterday this is my patch for account_invoice. I saw that there are already functions for sale and purchase on prod ...
2009-02-20 19:45 -!- tekknokrat( has left #tryton
2009-02-20 20:07 -!- ikks_(n=igor@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 20:28 -!- paola( has left #tryton
2009-02-20 20:32 -!- enlightx(n=enlightx@ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 20:47 -!- tekknokrat( has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 20:50 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Hey what do you think of this ?
2009-02-20 20:51 -!- tekknokrat( has left #tryton
2009-02-20 21:25 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: this looks very good
2009-02-20 21:27 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: I investigated a bit about the assembly of products we discussed before some time. Finaly the BOM is the part of your model, which we can share if it is an own module without dependencies to production and stock.
2009-02-20 21:28 <vengfulsquirrel> Oh you wouldn't use the stock or production modules ?
2009-02-20 21:29 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: for production it is good.
2009-02-20 21:29 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: but for the assembly out of goods and services its bad.
2009-02-20 21:30 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: But bundle products are made of a BOM too.
2009-02-20 21:30 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: so when we have a generic BOM Module for all kinds of Products, we both can use it
2009-02-20 21:31 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm yeah that might be like trying to make one thing be two things at once.
2009-02-20 21:31 <vengfulsquirrel> I think we should probably create a different module for bundles.
2009-02-20 21:33 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: No, because a product is a product, one thing. With your idea you try to separate products in goods and services.
2009-02-20 21:34 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm I think bundles are trying to serve a different purpose though.
2009-02-20 21:35 <vengfulsquirrel> Especially if you are not using the stock and production modules.
2009-02-20 21:35 <vengfulsquirrel> Bundles seem to be just for accounting and/or stock purposes.
2009-02-20 21:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Can you explain to me again exactly what you would need ? Like in the format of a Use-Case.
2009-02-20 21:37 <vengfulsquirrel> udono: ^
2009-02-20 21:39 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: when we have general BOM for products, and specialities for goods (production) and services (timesheet), its more clean for me. But BOM of a product is everytime a collection of all pre-products. Some pre-products are produced (Goods, resource), some are bought (foreign-services), some are made by employees(own-services, human resources).
2009-02-20 21:41 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: or is your BOM a something like a production plan?
2009-02-20 21:48 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: I need a BOM without strict dependencies to stock and production.
2009-02-20 21:52 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: E.g. on Sales you sell a computer for $999, the computer is made of different parts (goods) and services (HR). Your production plans the goods. and a HR module plans the services. Only with this all tis informations together we can find out the cost price of a product.
2009-02-20 21:53 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah that makes sense to me but you still need production and stock for that to work.
2009-02-20 21:53 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: but not for services
2009-02-20 21:53 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: only for goods
2009-02-20 21:53 <vengfulsquirrel> Right yeah the production module would just ignore services
2009-02-20 21:54 <vengfulsquirrel> So maybe a bom could be used by either production and/or hr.
2009-02-20 21:54 <udono> so the question: is that what you name a BOM a 'production plan'?
2009-02-20 21:54 <vengfulsquirrel> The production module is just going to ignore srvices since nothing needs to be allocated.
2009-02-20 21:54 <udono> or is it a BOM
2009-02-20 21:54 <vengfulsquirrel> I don't really know the difference
2009-02-20 21:54 <vengfulsquirrel> Its just a list of products needed to make another product.
2009-02-20 21:55 <vengfulsquirrel> If one of the products in the list is a service it will just ignore it since right now it only handles pulling and pushing from storage and managing the start/stop times.
2009-02-20 21:56 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: that's good. I can include services in the BOM but production don't care?
2009-02-20 21:57 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: looks good
2009-02-20 21:57 <vengfulsquirrel> Ha well remind me when I actually write it but that seems simple enough right ? If its mentioned in the bom and its a service I won't even have to pull it into the production input.
2009-02-20 21:57 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: except that I don't see the use of assigned moves from prodcution to storage
2009-02-20 21:57 <udono> vengfulsquirrel: When you make bom as an own module everything will be easy
2009-02-20 21:57 <cedk> udono: BOM = bill of material
2009-02-20 21:58 <cedk> udono: it is used only for stockable product
2009-02-20 21:58 <udono> cedk: hump
2009-02-20 21:58 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Well instead of doing it automatically I just assumed people would want to review the moves before they are done. That way I can add that optional "put it away where it should go" functionality.
2009-02-20 21:59 <cedk> udono: the time spend for the production can be added on the BOM put it must be on an other module
2009-02-20 22:00 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Yeah you think it should intentionally exclude non-stockable products ?
2009-02-20 22:00 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: but it doesn't need to be a assignation of product
2009-02-20 22:00 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: it is just a state of the production order
2009-02-20 22:00 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes, production is only move product
2009-02-20 22:00 <udono> cedk: so we need something on a higher level for this... but how is it named?
2009-02-20 22:00 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: you don't produce services
2009-02-20 22:01 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah but production would just ignore the services.
2009-02-20 22:02 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: you can imagine added services information on BOM with an other module to compute the cost price
2009-02-20 22:02 <cedk> udono: I don't think except if you have a case
2009-02-20 22:03 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Are you saying I should just leave the moves in draft state for review ?
2009-02-20 22:04 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes
2009-02-20 22:04 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Okay, also I think I'm a little confused still about the to/from.
2009-02-20 22:04 <vengfulsquirrel> Should there just be exactly one location of type production per warehouse and moves are made to and from that ?
2009-02-20 22:04 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: assignation means in Tryton I "book" those products
2009-02-20 22:05 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: and normally you must not change assigned moves
2009-02-20 22:05 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: they must be considered like done
2009-02-20 22:05 <vengfulsquirrel> Right so to assign a move on some products is to block another move from being assigned to those products.
2009-02-20 22:05 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes
2009-02-20 22:05 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: by default one production location, but it can have many locations
2009-02-20 22:05 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Well I've made some notes about lowering their quantities but not increasing them, for example if you turned out using less of a material than was expected for some reason.
2009-02-20 22:06 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: it depends of each one
2009-02-20 22:06 <vengfulsquirrel> yikes, why many ?
2009-02-20 22:06 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I think for extra/under product quantity, it must be better to create a new move
2009-02-20 22:07 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: like that we keep history of what happens
2009-02-20 22:07 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I don't know why many, perhaps to separate different production lines
2009-02-20 22:07 <vengfulsquirrel> Hm, so move 10 into production and then what you don't use move back ?
2009-02-20 22:08 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: but it must be a configuration choice
2009-02-20 22:08 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: and by default there will be only one
2009-02-20 22:09 <cedk> other topics:
2009-02-20 22:10 <cedk> did you see I find bugs in OpenERP without using it :-)
2009-02-20 22:11 <vengfulsquirrel> Ha nice work
2009-02-20 22:13 <vengfulsquirrel> hey I was reading about the left/right
2009-02-20 22:13 <vengfulsquirrel> I think that is commonly referred to as the Nested Sets model, does that sound right ?
2009-02-20 22:14 <vengfulsquirrel> versus Adjacency List model
2009-02-20 22:17 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I know it with this name: Modified Preorder Tree Traversal
2009-02-20 22:19 <udono> cedk: another topic: module ldap_base and ldap_auth: did I need to be aware of company?
2009-02-20 22:20 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: I still need to update the state/location information we have talked about on the original model but I started the other modules so you could see what I meant by making them as extensions:
2009-02-20 22:20 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-02-20 22:20 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-02-20 22:20 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-02-20 22:20 <cedk> udono: I don't think except if you want to store company information on LDAP
2009-02-20 22:21 <udono> cedk: I don't think so, because all companys are mastered in one database on one machine.
2009-02-20 22:21 <udono> cedk: yes, that's right
2009-02-20 22:22 <udono> cedk: for storing company information you can create another ldap_resource.
2009-02-20 22:23 <CIA-10> tryton: * r439 /wiki/ Edited wiki page through web user interface.
2009-02-20 22:23 <udono> cedk: but ldap authentication to a ldap resource is better on company side, I would say. One authentication method for all company users.
2009-02-20 22:24 <udono> ACTION winks X0d_of_N0d
2009-02-20 22:25 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I don't think it is good to create phatom product.product
2009-02-20 22:26 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: I would prefer a new model
2009-02-20 22:27 <vengfulsquirrel> Well it just kind of complicates everything to have a different model.
2009-02-20 22:28 <cedk> udono: I think if you use one database for many companies then it is not a problem to have one LDAP for authentication of users
2009-02-20 22:28 <cedk> udono: and by the way, user can switch from one company to an other
2009-02-20 22:33 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: You mean like new model as in 'production.phantom' ?
2009-02-20 22:33 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes
2009-02-20 22:33 <vengfulsquirrel> What if it has to be stocked ?
2009-02-20 22:34 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: it can not because it is phatom
2009-02-20 22:36 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: I think almost all of the time yes, but when we start doing work in progress stuff, I think sometimes if a production is stopped early you could be left with phantom assemblies that you have to stock.
2009-02-20 22:36 <vengfulsquirrel> What are the problems of using the existed product.product model ?
2009-02-20 22:37 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: so you create the product and you make moves like for over/under quantity
2009-02-20 22:37 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: it is bad because you can not sale it, you normally don't stock it
2009-02-20 22:38 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: it is not a real product
2009-02-20 22:38 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah but you already can have products you cannot sell
2009-02-20 22:39 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: and sometimes it is something that doesn't exist
2009-02-20 22:41 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/ has joined #tryton
2009-02-20 22:43 <cristi_an> cedk: nice ideea
2009-02-20 22:43 <cristi_an> with the shop !!!
2009-02-20 22:44 <cedk> cristi_an: it is bechamel's idea
2009-02-20 22:56 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Yeah okay well that definitely will ruin the existing model so I'll have to think about it I guess.
2009-02-20 23:11 <vengfulsquirrel> get_db_and_pool has been removed and replaced with ? (db, pool) = (Database(dbname), Pool(dbname)) ?
2009-02-20 23:12 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: yes
2009-02-20 23:12 <cedk> but normally on module side you don't need it
2009-02-20 23:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Thanks, its for an import script.
2009-02-20 23:21 <vengfulsquirrel> cedk: Sorry, what about wkf_service.WorkflowService()?
2009-02-20 23:21 <X0d_of_N0d> udono: hey
2009-02-20 23:21 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: the workflow function are now on the models
2009-02-20 23:22 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: see trytond/model/
2009-02-20 23:24 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm so I don't have to start any sort of service?
2009-02-20 23:25 <vengfulsquirrel> I'm trying to use the API directly from python.
2009-02-20 23:25 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: no
2009-02-20 23:25 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-02-20 23:25 <vengfulsquirrel> opps
2009-02-20 23:25 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: just call register_classes
2009-02-20 23:26 <vengfulsquirrel>
2009-02-20 23:26 <cedk> vengfulsquirrel: you can remove wkf_service.WorkflowService()
2009-02-20 23:27 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay thanks

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!