IRC logs of #tryton for Tuesday, 2012-11-20 #tryton log beginning Tue Nov 20 00:00:01 CET 2012
sisalpcedk: I think adding a name and an comment field on comm modes should be close to what I want01:13
sisalpcedk: having several phone numbers without any name (reception, direct...) nor comment (special instructions) is not realistic01:15
sisalpcedk: I see comment is already there, so only name (and maybe gender) would be to be added01:19
sisalpcedk: I didn't see comments field because it's too big ;-)01:20
cedksisalp: why not if you just need simple data01:23
sisalpif data are not simple, then we go back to the previous discussion01:24
sisalpcedk: I cannot search a party on a contact mechanism01:28
sisalpcedk I think renaming "contact mechanism" to "contacts" and providing a few text fields (gender, name, job, comment) could be a base for discussion01:30
sisalpit would be far easier to understand than party_relationship01:33
cedksisalp: perhaps but it is a wrong modelisation01:33
sisalpbut a phone number without the name of the line holder doesn't make sens anyway01:36
corrosisalp: I see there was some discussion about a potential module party_relationship last night. Actualy there exists already an implementation for that: It allows you to define arbitrary symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships, originally meant to represent family structures. Maybe it helps you organize your parties.09:13
rmusisalp: another possibility would be to make new object "", and associate party.contact_mechanism and party.address with it. then you could have a contact "delivery", a contact "invoice", and multiple "person"-contacts.09:14
sisalprmu: I don't need a more complex solution. If the contact has an address, then he may be a party and linked by relationship13:02
sisalprmu: in most of the cases, you have a list of business cards and you want to keep this info in the party context13:05
sisalprmu: and a contact is not comparable to an invoicing address. I agree it is a mistake in openerp.13:06
sisalpcorro: thank you for the pointer to party relationship module. It looks as expected. I think it would be a nightmare to manage contacts this way.14:45
sisalpcorro: But as we need such a module it is probably a good example.14:46
coepsHi folks,21:29
coepsI have an error that max recursion depth exceeded in cmp, when I upgrade my own module from 2.4 to 2.6.x21:30
coepsthe module works correctly in 2.2 (development version ) and after upgrade to 2.4.21:30
coepsAfter uprgrading to 2.6 I get the error. The error occurs even though I did not install the module. Just being in the "modules" directory produces that error.21:31
coepsIt is reproducable21:32
coepsError in, line 611, in __getattr__21:33
coepsline: if name == 'id':21:34
coepsdo I have to post this somewhere? what data is needed?21:34
cedkcoeps: did you change the code to follow the AR ?21:35
coepswhat AR21:35
cedkActive Record21:36
coepsUhh, I was pointed to the wiki last time, according to that there is no action required from 2.4 -> to 2.6.21:36
cedkcoeps: which wiki?21:37
cedkcoeps: it is the roadmap21:38
cedkcoeps: you must look at the CHANGELOG21:38
coepson the tryton-website?21:39
cedkcoeps: in the code21:40
cedkcoeps: I wrote this to help migrate modules:
coepscedk: I wil have a look, thank you, but honestly guys: I really think that project is great, I follow all the stuff you post in the internet, I spent apporx. 200 hours for just playing around with tryton, but If you do not get your docu right, the project will fail. Believe me, I have loads of experience regarding software (erp) stuff. I am close to giving up. (tommorow I will give it a try anyways :) right now I am pretty tired). :(21:49
cedkcoeps: for me the doc is right, certainly not complete but right21:51
coepsBut where is it? I didn't find it on the tryton-page. there is  no hint, that I have to adjust the module. I was expecting, the active record is a "backend" thing with now impact on the api. Maybe I am overlooking stuff.21:54
cedkcoeps: it is in the CHANGELOG21:54
coepscdek: can this be found on the website? or just in the code?21:57
cedkcoeps: it is in each package21:59
cedkcoeps: what are your modules?22:05
coepsparty -> country, product, and my own simple one.22:06
coepsmy own was just a little try to get a feeling of the capabilities first.22:06
cedkcoeps: did you publish it somewhere?22:07
coepsNo, not yet, it is rather simplistic.:)22:07
cedkcoeps: so I guess it will be fast to port it to 2.622:09
cedkcoeps: globally: setup the register method and remove the instanciation22:09
coepsI just compared the old with the old one. I understand what is meant with the instanciation. But I have no clue what I have t do with register.22:26
coepsceck: I will do this tomorrow, I go through the doku, the file you posted for me, and will compare some code in 2.4 and 2.6. I hope I can get some of your (reliable, thank you for that) help tomorrow if needed. My module is basically a portion of invoice, comparing these should help. Thank you so far.22:34
-!- plantian(~ian@ has left #tryton22:45

Generated by 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!