IRC logs of #tryton for Monday, 2012-01-30 #tryton log beginning Mon Jan 30 00:00:01 CET 2012
2012-01-30 06:43 -!- plantian( has left #tryton
2012-01-30 08:19 -!- udono( has left #tryton
2012-01-30 11:32 <navis> cedk: hi, would you consider including in tryton a module with the "tax included prices" modifications discussed here on 26/01 with grasbauer ?
2012-01-30 11:32 <navis>
2012-01-30 11:32 <navis> begins at 16:39
2012-01-30 11:37 <cedk> navis: I'm not sure to understand
2012-01-30 11:40 <navis> cedk: 4 days ago we discussed a solution for businesses who need to sell with "all taxes included" prices
2012-01-30 11:41 <navis> cedk: grasbauer said that they had made it for a customer by calculating everything based on a sale_price, which is tax included, and retro computing the net price from that
2012-01-30 11:42 <navis> cedk: for example so that prices like 9,95 are respected on invoices
2012-01-30 11:42 <navis> cedk: this is a requirement if one wants a pos solution later on
2012-01-30 11:43 <navis> cedk: my question is would such a functionnality be considered for inclusion in tryton ?
2012-01-30 12:00 <cedk> navis: I can not say because I don't understand what you want to do
2012-01-30 12:01 <navis> cedk: ok, I need to sell with taxes included
2012-01-30 12:01 <cedk> navis: I understand the requirements, but not the solution
2012-01-30 12:02 <navis> cedk: that means that prices like 1€ should appear like that on invoices, and all calculations should be done with that price, and not the 0,83 approximation
2012-01-30 12:02 <navis> cedk: ah ok
2012-01-30 12:02 <navis> cedk: the solution is to modify the sale object so that all calculations are done using the tax included price
2012-01-30 12:03 <navis> cedk: and at the end the net (tax excluded) prices are retro computed from that
2012-01-30 12:03 <cedk> navis: I'm against such solution
2012-01-30 12:03 <navis> cedk:
2012-01-30 12:03 <navis> cedk: why ?
2012-01-30 12:04 <cedk> navis: because it is not the role of sale to do that, it is pos
2012-01-30 12:04 <navis> cedk: no, this is independent from pos
2012-01-30 12:04 <navis> cedk: pos needs this, but others too
2012-01-30 12:04 <navis> cedk: consider a retailer web site, selling b2c and not b2b
2012-01-30 12:05 <cedk> navis: it is a pos
2012-01-30 12:05 <cedk> navis: sale module is b2b and pos should be b2c
2012-01-30 12:05 <navis> cedk: a web site like amazon is a pos ?
2012-01-30 12:05 <navis> cedk: a pos has much more requirements than that
2012-01-30 12:06 <navis> cedk: and is absolutely not adapted to web sales
2012-01-30 12:07 <navis> cedk: pos is a sales canal, like any other one
2012-01-30 12:08 <navis> cedk: it is independent of your target client
2012-01-30 12:08 <navis> cedk: tax included or excluded is dependent on your target client, not the sales canal
2012-01-30 12:09 <navis> cedk: you can sell with prices tax included or excluded at a pos and on the web, it depends on your client, not where you sell
2012-01-30 12:10 <cedk> navis: I don't agree
2012-01-30 12:11 <navis> cedk: you mean a web site selling to end users must use a pos ???
2012-01-30 12:12 <navis> cedk: and you can't sell to businesses at a pos ?
2012-01-30 12:12 <cedk> navis: I don't care about the name pos
2012-01-30 12:13 <cedk> navis: sale is b2b and b2c is something else
2012-01-30 12:15 <navis> cedk: ok, so if I understand correctly, you prefer a new object, same as sale but with tax included logic
2012-01-30 12:16 <navis> cedk: like a sale_b2c
2012-01-30 12:16 <cedk> navis: yes
2012-01-30 12:18 <navis> cedk: could that be included in tryton when done ?
2012-01-30 12:20 <cedk> navis: why not
2012-01-30 12:22 <navis> cedk: just a question, why do you prefer a different object ?
2012-01-30 12:26 <navis> cedk: I mean, sale_b2c can also be used to sell to businesses, it is just using a different base to calculate prices
2012-01-30 12:26 <cedk> navis: because from experience mixing taxe included with tax excluded doesn't work
2012-01-30 12:28 <navis> cedk: I didn't plan to mix, by activating the tax included module, you switch to tax included calculations
2012-01-30 12:29 <navis> cedk: with t
2012-01-30 12:29 <navis> cedk: with two objects, we will have to make them mutually exclusive
2012-01-30 12:30 <navis> cedk: is this possible in tryton ? declaring a conflict between two modules ?
2012-01-30 12:31 <bechamel> navis: why do you want to makes them exclusive
2012-01-30 12:32 <bechamel> ?
2012-01-30 12:32 <navis> bechamel: because they would make the same product have a different price for the same client
2012-01-30 12:33 <navis> bechamel: 1€ tax included is not 0,82 tax excluded
2012-01-30 12:33 <navis> bechamel: it would be very illogical to use both
2012-01-30 12:33 <bechamel> navis: what if you sell tax included to some of your customers and tax excluded to others ?
2012-01-30 12:35 <navis> bechamel: it is not selling tax included or excluded, it is just basing the calculations on the tax included or excluded amount
2012-01-30 12:35 <navis> bechamel: you can calculate on the tax included prices, and still sell tax excluded
2012-01-30 12:35 <navis> bechamel: to some clients
2012-01-30 12:36 <navis> bechamel: when I sell to french business clients, they receive their invoices tax excluded
2012-01-30 12:36 <navis> bechamel: but their calculation is the same as any of my belgian clients
2012-01-30 12:37 <bechamel> navis: ok but the modified calculation is especially usefull for tax included prices, isn't it ?
2012-01-30 12:38 <navis> bechamel: we sell to end users, so we have to use round tax included prices
2012-01-30 12:38 <navis> bechamel: that doesn't mean that we do not sell to businesses
2012-01-30 12:39 <navis> bechamel: take a simple example: let a product be 1€ vat included
2012-01-30 12:39 <cedk> navis: you can not use tax included if you sell in b2b
2012-01-30 12:39 <cedk> navis: because your net price will change depending on the quantity
2012-01-30 12:40 <navis> cedk: we announce prices vat included, to businesses too
2012-01-30 12:41 <cedk> navis: I will not buy to you if you don't tell me you vat excluded price
2012-01-30 12:41 <navis> cedk: if as a business you buy on amazon, your net price is based on a tax included price
2012-01-30 12:41 <navis> cedk: believe me, many business do :-)
2012-01-30 12:43 <cedk> navis: I don't know if amazon has a pro section
2012-01-30 12:43 <navis> cedk: it can just generate rounding errors for businesses who want vat excluded prices
2012-01-30 12:43 <navis> cedk: they usually don't care
2012-01-30 12:43 <bechamel> navis: anyway, I don't see how "one sale model vs two sale model " change anything for you
2012-01-30 12:44 <navis> cedk: but try to sell a rounding error to a retail client, and see what happens
2012-01-30 12:44 <navis> bechamel: I didn't think about it, but why not...
2012-01-30 12:44 <bechamel> navis: the "same product with different prices for the same client" is nit solved
2012-01-30 12:45 <bechamel> *not
2012-01-30 12:46 <navis> bechamel: I don't understand, can you be more specific ?
2012-01-30 12:46 <cedk> I don't see where I can put a VAT number on amazon, so not a good example
2012-01-30 12:48 <bechamel> navis: it was about mutually-exclusive modules
2012-01-30 12:49 <bechamel> navis: you want to make the modules mutually-exclusive but you also say that you have both business and non-business customers
2012-01-30 12:51 <navis> bechamel: yes, I have business customers, their price is the same as non-business
2012-01-30 12:51 <navis> bechamel: I of course have base, vat, and base+vat on my invoices
2012-01-30 12:52 <navis> bechamel: but all calculations are based on vat included prices
2012-01-30 12:52 <navis> bechamel: that only change the rounding, really
2012-01-30 12:53 <navis> bechamel: which is important to retail (10x1€ = 10€, not 10,04), but less to businesses
2012-01-30 12:53 <cedk> navis: it is not possible to have the same price for b2b and b2c
2012-01-30 12:54 <cedk> navis: what you do is manage b2b as b2c
2012-01-30 12:55 <navis> cedk: I do sell to plenty of businesses, and have never had any problem
2012-01-30 12:56 <navis> cedk: of course they know us as a retailer
2012-01-30 12:56 <navis> cedk: but after reflection, I have nothing against both modules coexisting
2012-01-30 12:57 <navis> cedk: and now I see the problem in mixing everything in sale
2012-01-30 12:57 <navis> cedk: that would not be a problem in our case, but could be for others
2012-01-30 13:01 <meanmicio> Hello all !
2012-01-30 13:02 <meanmicio> I'll be working in implementing QR as IDs in GNU Health. If anyone has done something already in Tryton let me know, so we don't duplicate efforts
2012-01-30 13:37 <cedk> meanmicio: you should take a look at
2012-01-30 14:12 <meanmicio> cedk : thanks. I'm working with qrcode (
2012-01-30 14:13 <meanmicio> cedk : It looks quite nice, but is preliminary. This one generates easily a PNG from the argument. Just testing it.
2012-01-30 14:15 <meanmicio> cedk : now is a matter of embedding the resulting graph to Libreoffice
2012-01-30 14:15 <cedk> meanmicio: which one?
2012-01-30 14:16 <meanmicio> cedk : the QR png graph generated with this qrcode lib
2012-01-30 14:16 <meanmicio> cedk : So we can use them in the reports.
2012-01-30 14:18 <cedk> meanmicio: hubarcode also generate png
2012-01-30 14:29 <meanmicio> cedk: Yes. I will test both, since they both are in pypi. qrcode seem quite light.
2012-01-30 14:31 <meanmicio> cedk : Now is a matter of passing the data as an argument from Tryton, then embedding into Libreoffice.
2012-01-30 14:38 <cedk> meanmicio: depends if you really will only need qr
2012-01-30 16:22 <navis> cedk: I'm looking at the sale_b2c (name is not set in stone :-) implementation discussed earlier today
2012-01-30 16:22 <navis> cedk: wouldn't using a new object mean that we have to reimplement all extensions made to sale ?
2012-01-30 16:23 <navis> cedk: like opportunities, price_lists, shipment,... and later pos, reservations,...
2012-01-30 16:24 <navis> cedk: all these apply to both objects
2012-01-30 16:26 <navis> cedk: reimplement is a big word, duplicating is more appropriate
2012-01-30 16:28 <navis> cedk: but still, «duplicating» sounds very bad in an it project...
2012-01-30 16:29 <cedk> navis: I don't see how opportunity could be used for a b2c
2012-01-30 16:29 <cedk> navis: I don't how shipment is a prequel to sale
2012-01-30 16:30 <navis> cedk: sale_shipment_cost
2012-01-30 16:30 <cedk> navis: price_list is generic and should work on any kind of Model
2012-01-30 16:31 <navis> cedk: it is sale_price_list, it specifically modifies sale and depends on it
2012-01-30 16:32 <navis> cedk: why would opportunity be irrelevant for non business clients ?
2012-01-30 16:32 <navis> cedk: I can get non business leads
2012-01-30 16:37 <cedk> navis: I will say for the last time, sale tax included is only for b2c
2012-01-30 16:37 -!- bdunnette(~dunn0172@2607:ea00:101:3c4c:5e26:aff:fe7a:3ea3) has left #tryton
2012-01-30 16:37 <navis> cedk: yes ok, I agree with that
2012-01-30 16:38 <navis> cedk: but all extensions made to sales are also relevant in b2c
2012-01-30 16:39 <navis> cedk: now maybe there is what is needed in tryton to make those extensions generic, I don't know it enough
2012-01-30 16:40 <navis> cedk: but there is no reason why opportunities, price_lists,... are not relevant for the b2c case
2012-01-30 16:41 <cedk> navis: sorry, but using price tax included is not relevant in an ERP
2012-01-30 16:41 <cedk> navis: so you can have a document that can work with it but it will never completly integrated in the system
2012-01-30 16:42 <cedk> navis: working with tax included has sense for b2c which is a pos
2012-01-30 16:43 <navis> cedk: I can see that you have much resistance to it, I don't understand why, but I will stop bothering you with it
2012-01-30 16:43 <navis> cedk: sorry to have lost your and my time
2012-01-30 16:43 <cedk> navis: I have because OpenERP has such feature that is broken since day 1 and will never work
2012-01-30 16:44 <navis> cedk: I know that this is broken in openerp, and i don't care, openerp is broken in so many ways that it is irrelevant now
2012-01-30 16:45 <cedk> navis: I worked on it during months without succeed
2012-01-30 16:45 <navis> cedk: but that doesn't mean that the functionnality has to be a broken hack
2012-01-30 16:45 <cedk> navis: so I'm sure we can not mix both in one document
2012-01-30 16:45 <navis> cedk: I'm ok with that
2012-01-30 16:45 <navis> cedk: and I'm ok with a separate object
2012-01-30 16:46 <navis> cedk: I'm just thinking about it and finding gotchas before I commit to it
2012-01-30 16:46 <navis> cedk: and one gotcha is that it duplicates functionnality
2012-01-30 16:47 <cedk> navis: I really prefer duplicate code than complex and buggy
2012-01-30 16:47 <navis> cedk: now if that functionnality (all extensions to sales) can be made to work on sale and sale_b2c, then no problem
2012-01-30 16:52 <cedk> navis: have you an example of software with such fonctionnalities?
2012-01-30 16:52 <navis> cedk: yes, I use it internally
2012-01-30 16:53 <navis> cedk: but every software which can sell to non businesses must have it in some form
2012-01-30 16:53 <navis> cedk: in the free o
2012-01-30 16:54 <navis> cedk: in the free world, I guess every web shop engine must have it
2012-01-30 16:54 <cedk> navis: come on every webshop can not even manage taxes correctly
2012-01-30 16:55 <cedk> navis: you mean your current software can work both way
2012-01-30 16:56 <navis> cedk: :-) ok ok for web shops :-)
2012-01-30 16:56 <navis> cedk: yes, but one has to decide one way or the other at initial configuration
2012-01-30 16:56 <navis> cedk: we manage all sales in tax-included calculation mode
2012-01-30 16:57 <cedk> navis: the software can work in one or other way out-of-the-box?
2012-01-30 16:58 <cedk> navis: more over, the more we talk the more I think you need a pos
2012-01-30 16:58 <navis> cedk: out of the box is a big word, it came fully installed with a contract
2012-01-30 16:59 <navis> cedk: but it can work both ways
2012-01-30 16:59 <navis> cedk: frankly I do need a pos, but it is not my priority right now
2012-01-30 17:00 -!- pjstevns( has left #tryton
2012-01-30 17:00 <navis> cedk: and that functionnality is not stritcly limited to pos
2012-01-30 17:00 <navis> cedk: if I make it, I'd like to make it right
2012-01-30 17:08 <bechamel> navis: does your current software allows to "tweak" tax rounding (iirc, it's the main issue with tax included prices).
2012-01-30 17:10 <navis> cedk: no, it is just that I define sale prices tax included for belgium, and other values are calculated from there
2012-01-30 17:10 <navis> oups, that was meant for bechamel...
2012-01-30 17:11 <navis> cedk: I just checked, can use both ways of calculating
2012-01-30 17:11 <bechamel> navis: so when you sale to other countries, your prices are not rounded anymore ?
2012-01-30 17:12 <navis> cedk: go to, put 10x C6657GE in a basket, and you can see it ttc or hvat
2012-01-30 17:12 <navis> cedk: which is not the same amount
2012-01-30 17:12 <navis> bechamel: if business users, thats right
2012-01-30 17:13 <navis> bechamel: to take the same example, ldlc has the same way of doing things
2012-01-30 17:13 <bechamel> navis: and for non-business customer? if I understand correctly you remove the 21% vat and the re-add the foreign vat
2012-01-30 17:14 <navis> bechamel: prices on and are the same, except for the difference in vat
2012-01-30 17:14 <navis> bechamel: no, non-business customers in the eu have 21% vat
2012-01-30 17:15 <navis> bechamel: and out of eu have no vat
2012-01-30 17:16 <bechamel> navis: I see
2012-01-30 17:17 <navis> bechamel: this does not depend on the way prices are calculated, non business customers in eu pay the vat of the seller
2012-01-30 17:21 <bechamel> navis: it looks likes it's easier to build a software that works with tax-included prices by default and handle tax-excluded as an exception than the other way around
2012-01-30 17:22 <navis> bechamel: yes, it seems so
2012-01-30 17:23 <navis> bechamel: if I take the plunge and implement a second sale object for b2c case, do you think it would be possible to make the other «sale enhancing» modules generic ?
2012-01-30 17:24 <cedk> navis: quantity is limited to 99 :-)
2012-01-30 17:24 <navis> cedk: on ldlc ? I had the same problem, that's why I said 10 :-)
2012-01-30 17:25 <cedk> navis: of course if you limit the quantity, you can not reach the issue
2012-01-30 17:25 <navis> cedk: yes, 10x C6657GE gets the issue
2012-01-30 17:27 <navis> cedk: vat included = 161,40; vat excluded = 133,40
2012-01-30 17:27 <cedk> navis: any way, I'm pretty sure they have define a price TTC and a price HTC
2012-01-30 17:27 <navis> cedk: 133,40 x 1,21 = 161,41
2012-01-30 17:27 <bechamel> navis: if we want disctinct sale models and keep all the feature provided by extra modules, we need at least a common api and I think a common generic sale that will be inherited by both sale model
2012-01-30 17:28 <cedk> navis: of course, but what is their invoice?
2012-01-30 17:28 <bechamel> and this means that all related modules must be adapted
2012-01-30 17:28 <navis> cedk: no idea, I guess they respect what is in the basket, that would be too gross
2012-01-30 17:29 <cedk> navis: so they have 2 objects
2012-01-30 17:29 <bechamel> cedk: "I'm pretty sure they have define a price TTC and a price HTC" -> is it an issue ?
2012-01-30 17:30 <cedk> bechamel: no but it will requires 2 objects to store both kind of command
2012-01-30 17:30 <navis> bechamel: the only difference is the way a sale_line and sale_total is calculated
2012-01-30 17:30 -!- bdunnette(~dunn0172@2607:ea00:101:3c4c:5e26:aff:fe7a:3ea3) has left #tryton
2012-01-30 17:30 <cedk> navis: not only calculated but also stored
2012-01-30 17:32 <navis> cedk: a sale line doesn't store all amounts ?
2012-01-30 17:33 <navis> cedk: yes it does, unit_price and amount are sufficient
2012-01-30 17:35 <navis> cedk: for sale you store net prices, for b2c you store ttc prices
2012-01-30 17:37 <navis> cedk: for sale, untaxed is the sum of amounts and total is computed
2012-01-30 17:37 <navis> cedk: for b2c total is the sum, and untaxed is computed
2012-01-30 17:44 <cedk> for info:
2012-01-30 17:47 <navis> cedk: what is it ?
2012-01-30 17:47 <cedk> navis: an old module to import sale line from a pos
2012-01-30 17:50 <navis> cedk: I'm a bit out of time today, I will come back tonight or tomorrow morning, I'd like to discuss this further to see if something nice can be done
2012-01-30 19:02 -!- bdunnette(~dunn0172@2607:ea00:101:3c4c:5e26:aff:fe7a:3ea3) has left #tryton
2012-01-30 19:24 <meanmicio> It looks like there's an issue with relatorio/genshi when dealing with binary fields
2012-01-30 19:36 <udono> meanmicio: hi, paepke has worked on barcode with Tryton. Maybe he has some ideas. You can find him on
2012-01-30 19:38 <meanmicio> udono : thanks
2012-01-30 19:39 <meanmicio> uduno : but unrelated to that, the binary fields are having issues when rendering
2012-01-30 19:40 <udono> meanmicio: are you on tip?
2012-01-30 19:41 <udono> meanmicio: or better ask: Which version of Tryton you use?
2012-01-30 19:41 <meanmicio> uduno : nope. Working on stable 2.2
2012-01-30 19:42 <meanmicio> uduno : will check with the latest
2012-01-30 19:43 <udono> meanmicio: It could be the change in 2.2 with the buffer, let me take a look...
2012-01-30 19:47 <cedk> meanmicio: what is the issue?
2012-01-30 19:47 <udono> meanmicio: the type for binary data changed in Tryton from base64 to buffer:
2012-01-30 19:47 <gltripp> re
2012-01-30 19:48 <gltripp> cedk: i didn't submit an issue
2012-01-30 19:49 <cedk> gltripp: why?
2012-01-30 19:50 <meanmicio> cedk : when trying to render/display a binary field (ie, patient picture) I get a traceback error (unicodedecode) at genshi/template/
2012-01-30 19:52 <cedk> meanmicio: what do you put as directive?
2012-01-30 19:55 <meanmicio> cedk : just the field name (ie,
2012-01-30 19:55 <cedk> meanmicio: it can not work
2012-01-30 19:56 <meanmicio> cedk : of course, when is null it works (None) :-)
2012-01-30 19:57 <cedk> meanmicio: image must be at least (bitstream, mimetype)
2012-01-30 19:57 <cedk> meanmicio: where bitstream could be another relatorio report or file object
2012-01-30 19:58 <cedk> meanmicio: it could also be (bitsream, mimetype, width, height)
2012-01-30 20:00 <navis> /j #tryton-fr
2012-01-30 20:00 <navis> oups...
2012-01-30 20:00 <cedk> gltripp: if you don't submit issue, it will never be fixed
2012-01-30 20:01 <meanmicio> cedk : Sure, actually when the report template has an embedded picture works, but the idea is to be able to render the binary field (when is a pic of course)
2012-01-30 20:01 <gltripp> i know - i think i will do it in the next time
2012-01-30 20:22 <gltripp> ouh
2012-01-30 20:22 <gltripp> thats strange
2012-01-30 20:23 <gltripp> i tried to upgrade from 1.8 to 2.0
2012-01-30 20:23 <gltripp> and got...
2012-01-30 20:30 <meanmicio> cedk : when using the object within a frame, it won't crash, but it does not render the pic either. I noticed that relatorio tries to identify the type for each field (__relatorio_guess_type).
2012-01-30 20:33 <cedk> meanmicio: I don't understand
2012-01-30 20:33 <cedk> gltripp: I don't understand how you can have now this issue when yesterday you go until the migration of stock module
2012-01-30 20:36 <gltripp> yesterday: migration from 1.8 db to 2.2
2012-01-30 20:36 -!- bdunnette(~dunn0172@2607:ea00:101:3c4c:5e26:aff:fe7a:3ea3) has left #tryton
2012-01-30 20:36 <gltripp> today: (same DB-snapshot) 1.8 to 2.0
2012-01-30 21:01 <cedk> gltripp: I don't understand how it is possible to have such error
2012-01-30 21:12 <cedk> gltripp: indeed, I understood it
2012-01-30 21:13 <cedk> gltripp: it seems you have the sequence ir_model_field_id_seq not sync
2012-01-30 21:13 <cedk> gltripp: which means that you have record in ir_model_field that has an id greater than the one in ir_model_field_id_seq
2012-01-30 21:14 <cedk> meanmicio: image can only be display in a frame
2012-01-30 21:22 <gltripp> w'll examine that
2012-01-30 21:24 <cedk> gltripp: I created the issue of yesterday
2012-01-30 21:37 <meanmicio> cedk : I'm using the format in the frame as in the relatorio documentation instructs image : object.field , but it won't render it.
2012-01-30 22:55 -!- bdunnette(~dunn0172@2607:ea00:101:3c4c:5e26:aff:fe7a:3ea3) has left #tryton
2012-01-30 23:53 <cedk> meanmicio: it can not work, you must use: image: (object.field, 'image/png')

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!