IRC logs of #tryton for Thursday, 2013-04-11 #tryton log beginning Thu Apr 11 00:00:01 CEST 2013
2013-04-11 00:22 <plantian> Is it possible to detect if the client cache is on or not?
2013-04-11 00:40 <cedk> plantian: it is always except if you start it with -d
2013-04-11 09:58 <giedrius> cedk: i'm trying to write test scenario for fifo moves, but i don't know the best way to do it.
2013-04-11 09:58 <cedk> giedrius: I'll be back in 1-2 hours
2013-04-11 09:59 <giedrius> cedk: what is the best practice: create company, currency, etc inside this test scenario or use test scenarios of company module for example
2013-04-11 09:59 <giedrius> cedk: okay
2013-04-11 11:56 <cedk> giedrius: yes you can look at other scenario
2013-04-11 12:14 <cedk> giedrius: I have updated the codereview
2013-04-11 12:37 <giedrius> cedk: but do i need to create all object needed for stock move, like company, currency, etc?
2013-04-11 12:38 <giedrius> cedk: i mean, for test scenarion on product_cost_fifo
2013-04-11 12:42 <cedk> giedrius: yes you have to create all needed
2013-04-11 13:08 <giedrius> cedk: what could be the problem, that stock moves cannot be created from test scenario
2013-04-11 13:08 <giedrius> cedk: UserError: ('UserError', (u'You try to bypass an access rule.\n(Document type: stock.move)', ''))
2013-04-11 13:09 <giedrius> cedk: do i need to create a user with full access rights?
2013-04-11 13:09 <cedk> giedrius: perhaps wrong company
2013-04-11 13:10 <giedrius> cedk: i have this code
2013-04-11 13:10 <giedrius> cedk: company is created on the same test scenario
2013-04-11 13:18 <cedk> giedrius: you should write a scenario instead of unittest
2013-04-11 13:18 <giedrius> cedk: what do you mean by scenario?
2013-04-11 13:18 <cedk> giedrius: because you miss all the context/user management that proetus gives
2013-04-11 13:19 <cedk> giedrius: the files starting with scenario_*
2013-04-11 13:19 <giedrius> cedk: ok, let me check
2013-04-11 13:24 <giedrius> cedk: cool, this looks nice, thanks
2013-04-11 13:58 <giedrius> cedk: i have a test scenario, how to attach it to your issue review?
2013-04-11 13:58 <cedk> giedrius: you can't
2013-04-11 13:58 <cedk> giedrius: any way, they will be commit separatly
2013-04-11 13:59 <giedrius> cedk: so contribute by another review or commit?
2013-04-11 14:04 <cedk> giedrius: yes do an other review
2013-04-11 14:05 <giedrius> ech, seems the life is not easy, there is no such a thing as staging on hg :(
2013-04-11 14:05 <giedrius> cedk: i guess i cannot put review by ignoring some other changes on repository?
2013-04-11 14:07 <Pilou> giedrius: with you can specify files
2013-04-11 14:08 <giedrius> Pilou: Can I do the same on hg review?
2013-04-11 14:11 <Pilou> i don't know
2013-04-11 14:12 <cedk> giedrius: you can use mq
2013-04-11 14:12 <giedrius> checking docs now, but seems it's not possible
2013-04-11 14:13 <giedrius> seems the easiest way is to copy&paste the file and undo changes
2013-04-11 14:17 <Pilou> you could 'shelve' unwanted modifications (
2013-04-11 14:18 <giedrius> hm, i get error, Issue creation errors: {'issue': ['This issue is closed (776002)']}
2013-04-11 14:18 <giedrius> how to post to the new review?
2013-04-11 14:19 <giedrius> ah, -c :-)
2013-04-11 14:24 <cedk> giedrius: I guess the scenario works with my patch?
2013-04-11 14:25 <giedrius> cedk: unfortunatly, no
2013-04-11 14:48 <sisalp> hello, is there an asset management module in Tryton ?
2013-04-11 14:49 <cedk> sisalp: yes in trunk
2013-04-11 14:49 <sisalp> will be included in 2.8 ?
2013-04-11 14:51 <cedk> sisalp: yes
2013-04-11 14:51 <sisalp> bravo
2013-04-11 15:28 <plantian> Hey guys is there anything I can tweak on the server to improve performance? I have a wizard that completes the whole sale workflow automatically and it takes from 30 seconds to over a minute to complete.
2013-04-11 16:12 <cedk> plantian: difficult to say, you need to analyse the bottleneck
2013-04-11 16:41 <cedk> giedrius: the scenario doesn't work at least because there are errors in it
2013-04-11 16:41 <cedk> giedrius: I will make comments
2013-04-11 17:14 <giedrius> cedk: yeah, lame mistake by me :) but seems it still does not work
2013-04-11 17:14 <giedrius> i'll test manually
2013-04-11 17:23 <cedk> giedrius: I think I have a fix
2013-04-11 17:23 <cedk> giedrius: but I see that for the second move it picks the second one fully instead of 1 on the first and 1 on the second
2013-04-11 17:30 <giedrius> cedk: or we can wait my implementation using links between fifo moves :)
2013-04-11 17:31 <cedk> giedrius: it will not change anything
2013-04-11 17:31 <giedrius> cedk: having links will be more clear implementation and less error prone
2013-04-11 17:33 <cedk> giedrius: no, it is just historical information
2013-04-11 17:33 <cedk> giedrius: it will not fix computation error
2013-04-11 17:36 <giedrius> cedk: it depends how it will be done. in my opinion, current implementation makes too much db queries, i think it could be optimized a bit
2013-04-11 17:38 <giedrius> i must go now, see you

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!