IRC logs of #tryton for Tuesday, 2012-05-29 #tryton log beginning Tue May 29 00:00:02 CEST 2012
2012-05-29 03:35 -!- Telesight( has left #tryton
2012-05-29 07:49 -!- grasbauer( has left #tryton
2012-05-29 07:50 -!- sampac( has left #tryton
2012-05-29 15:03 <Luminos741> Hello
2012-05-29 15:04 <Luminos741> I'm having issues with the installation of new modules using Proteus
2012-05-29 15:05 <Luminos741> The module to install is 'sale'
2012-05-29 15:20 <SISalp1> Hello,
2012-05-29 15:21 <SISalp1> are default values operated differently from proteus than on client ? Shall we feed explicitly defaults values when creating an item from proteus ?
2012-05-29 15:22 <bechamel> SISalp1: iirc proteus takes care of it
2012-05-29 15:27 <SISalp1> thank you
2012-05-29 15:28 <SISalp1> On our server, the demo script doesn't work on 2.4
2012-05-29 15:30 <SISalp1> we miss the last version
2012-05-29 15:30 <SISalp1> our's is 30 october
2012-05-29 15:31 <SISalp1> so 2.2 compliant
2012-05-29 15:32 <Luminos741> The URL we found is :
2012-05-29 15:37 <udono> Luminos741: Hi, which version of Tryton you use?
2012-05-29 15:37 <Luminos741> udono: I'm using Tryton 2.4
2012-05-29 15:39 <udono> Luminos741: Which error you get?
2012-05-29 15:39 <SISalp1> this one seems newer :
2012-05-29 15:42 <Luminos741> I gget this : "AttributeError: type object 'ir.module.module' has no attribute 'install'"
2012-05-29 15:43 <udono> Luminos741: may you please paste the complete traceback, e.g. on
2012-05-29 15:45 <bechamel> Luminos741: paste also the relevant part of your code
2012-05-29 15:45 <Luminos741> Traceback here :
2012-05-29 15:48 <Luminos741> And code there :
2012-05-29 15:48 <bechamel> Luminos741: it should be Module.button_install
2012-05-29 15:52 <Luminos741> bechamel: Just tried, the error is the same except for the attribute that becomes 'button_install' in the AttributeError
2012-05-29 15:57 <Luminos741> I probably should have missed something :)
2012-05-29 16:00 <bechamel> Luminos741: I don't see why it does not work
2012-05-29 16:01 <Luminos741> bechamel: Me neither (unfortunatly)
2012-05-29 16:07 <udono> Luminos741: delete the tryton_demo.pyc file and retry with Module.button_install
2012-05-29 16:08 <Luminos741> udono: Where is this file located ?
2012-05-29 16:08 <udono> Luminos741: usually beside the file.
2012-05-29 16:10 <Luminos741> udono: Can't find it... Maybe is the problem here ?
2012-05-29 16:11 <udono> Luminos741: no, I do not think it is a problem. if the pyc file is not there, it is compiled on each run.
2012-05-29 16:13 <Luminos741> udono: This issue is part of a more complete code. Would you like to check all the code ?
2012-05-29 16:14 <udono> Luminos741: double check the trytond version. Are you sure using 2.4 and not tip==2.5
2012-05-29 16:15 <Luminos741> udono: How can I check that ? To be absoluty sure ;)
2012-05-29 16:16 <Luminos741> Got it, the version is 2.4.2
2012-05-29 16:21 <SISalp1> if I run several trytond, how does proteus know which one to use ?
2012-05-29 16:22 <udono> Luminos741: so you should use Module.install like defined in
2012-05-29 16:22 <SISalp1> are there hidden defaults that make it find it on port 8000 for example ?
2012-05-29 16:23 <Luminos741> udono: I'll check this out, thank you
2012-05-29 16:25 <Luminos741> udono: I should say I don't really understand how this work... My poor python isn't helping ;)
2012-05-29 16:25 <udono> SISalp: are the trytonds in one branch?
2012-05-29 16:25 <SISalp1> no
2012-05-29 16:26 <SISalp1> they are started from source as detached processes
2012-05-29 16:26 <SISalp1> everyone has its own code directory and ports
2012-05-29 16:27 <udono> SISalp: I mean are you using only branch 2.2 or only 2.4 or are you using both?
2012-05-29 16:27 <SISalp1> for the today try I run only 2.4
2012-05-29 16:27 <SISalp1> on redefined ports
2012-05-29 16:28 <SISalp1> linux user is separated too
2012-05-29 16:30 <udono> SISalp: With >=2.4 you are lucky. You can use a config file for proteus,
2012-05-29 16:34 <SISalp1> udono: a new point for me. I don't see how this will work. have to have a deep thought about it. Thank you
2012-05-29 16:36 <udono> SISalp: IIUC, you can instruct trytond to use a specific trytond.conf file for a proteus connection.
2012-05-29 16:37 <SISalp1> udono: I have a script, the question is how do I choose the trytond it imports
2012-05-29 16:39 <SISalp1> can I import such a way /home/erp_user/production/server/trytond ?
2012-05-29 16:43 <SISalp1> or should I share the trytond config file with proteus, and if yes how ?
2012-05-29 16:46 <udono> SISalp: Hard to say without knowing your exact setup and your goals. Do you use virtualenv and pip?
2012-05-29 16:47 <SISalp1> I do for trytond
2012-05-29 16:47 <udono> SISalp: So why not install trytond and proteus into the venv and just import trytond
2012-05-29 16:47 <udono> ?
2012-05-29 16:48 <SISalp1> may be I'd rather use the xmlrpc locally to connect to the local trytond as it were distant ?
2012-05-29 16:48 <SISalp1> good idea I do
2012-05-29 16:53 <SISalp1> udono: I didn't install trytond in the environment. I use bin/python /path to tryton
2012-05-29 16:53 <udono> SISalp: Why not install trytond into the venv?
2012-05-29 16:54 <SISalp1> I don't know, I used env for dependencies only
2012-05-29 16:59 -!- pjstevns( has left #tryton
2012-05-29 17:16 <grasbauer> Hi.
2012-05-29 17:24 <grasbauer> why I can't delete an invoice generated form a sale? Are there sideefects, if I disable this behavior?
2012-05-29 17:24 <cedk> grasbauer: cancel it
2012-05-29 17:25 <SISalp1> hello, pip install tryton-modules-all doesn't work, what is wrong ?
2012-05-29 17:26 <cedk> SISalp1: I don't think there is such packages
2012-05-29 17:27 <SISalp1> cedk: pip install trytond works
2012-05-29 17:29 <grasbauer> cedk:it seems that canceling the invoice not solves the problem - the check makes a database lookup, if there is a sale related to the invoice
2012-05-29 17:32 <cedk> SISalp1: yes because it exists
2012-05-29 17:33 <cedk> grasbauer: but why do you want to delete if it is cancel?
2012-05-29 17:45 <grasbauer> cedk: good question ;) the invoice has no lines, because with invoice_line_standalone it is possible to merge invoices. This results in a lot of empty invoices in the treeview - which confuses our client
2012-05-29 17:52 -!- udono( has left #tryton
2012-05-29 17:54 <grasbauer> cedk: I'll go to write a wizzard "merge invoices" to handle this ....
2012-05-29 17:54 <cedk> grasbauer: don't understand
2012-05-29 17:54 <cedk> grasbauer: why is there empty invoice?
2012-05-29 17:54 <cedk> grasbauer: and is it customer or supplier invoice?
2012-05-29 17:57 <grasbauer> cedk: its a customer invoice - the usecase is: creating a sale with 1000 product, shipping partial 10x100 - there are 10 invoices. now the user frees the invoice_lines of 9 of them - adding this lines to one invoice - results in 9 empty invoices
2012-05-29 18:02 <cedk> grasbauer: why?
2012-05-29 18:03 <grasbauer> cedk: why what? why he makes one invoice for ten shipments?
2012-05-29 18:04 <cedk> grasbauer: yes why changing the way the invoice is generated after they are generated instead of before?
2012-05-29 18:09 <grasbauer> cedk: the sale is set to 'invoice on shipment' - its a sale with 10.000 Products. the client does calls for parts of this sale daily, sometimes hourly - so each day a lot of invoices are generated. The customer don't want a invoice for each call - he wants a invoice for one week or each 1000 products or whatever. and a client whos orders such a great amount of goods is king ....
2012-05-29 18:10 <cedk> grasbauer: so it must not be "invoice on shipement" or it must be improve
2012-05-29 18:12 <cedk> grasbauer: we already made a custom module to make the sale append invoice to exiting invoice instead of new one
2012-05-29 18:14 <grasbauer> cedk: ;) - that was my first approach as well - but it does not work in our particular usecase. So my first question was, if something strange happens, if I delete the sale_invoice_rel if i merge the invoices.
2012-05-29 18:16 <cedk> grasbauer: don't think
2012-05-29 18:16 <cedk> grasbauer: but you could lose a link to invoice for some sales
2012-05-29 18:18 <cedk> grasbauer: but I don't understand why it doesn't apply
2012-05-29 18:19 <grasbauer> cedk: could be that I missed a possible solution
2012-05-29 18:20 <cedk> grasbauer: I did it quite generic with in mind ti could be published) but it evolved in such way that it is no more
2012-05-29 18:21 <cedk> grasbauer: but the principle was simple, just overide the create method of invoice to return an existing one with similar values
2012-05-29 18:22 <grasbauer> cedk: sounds reasonable - need to talk with the client if this way is the prefered one or a small wizzard for selecting a number of invoices and merge them
2012-05-29 18:24 <grasbauer> cedk: the reason why applying lines to an already open invoice does not works all the time: the invoices need to splitted by product_categories
2012-05-29 18:25 <grasbauer> cedk: but this could be implemented as well
2012-05-29 20:58 <grasbauer> cedk: have written the merge module in a short sprint. the new wizzard is reloading the view from which the wizzard was started - but with the same res_ids, right? Because I delete records in the wizzard - so the reloading causes an error ...
2012-05-29 21:19 <cedk> grasbauer: yes
2012-05-29 21:26 <grasbauer> cedk: is there a way to reload the initial screen to avoid this?
2012-05-29 22:21 <grasbauer> ACTION seems impossible
2012-05-29 22:26 <cedk> grasbauer: not possible
2012-05-29 22:26 <grasbauer> cedk: so I should start the wizard from menu

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!