IRC logs of #tryton for Wednesday, 2013-10-02 #tryton log beginning Wed Oct 2 00:00:02 CEST 2013
2013-10-02 10:17 <jeancavallo> cedk: Shouldn't there be a timestamp entry in form/list_gtk .
2013-10-02 10:21 <cedk> jeancavallo: why?
2013-10-02 10:22 <jeancavallo> cedk: Well because there is one in proteus, and I have a case where the client actually looks for a timestamp widget, then crash
2013-10-02 10:24 <cedk> jeancavallo: don't see the point to show a timestamp
2013-10-02 10:25 <jeancavallo> cedk: The field exists so someone may want to display it. I display the ModelSQL's create_date field
2013-10-02 10:26 <cedk> jeancavallo: not valid argument
2013-10-02 10:27 <jeancavallo> cedk: You mean it is forbidden to display create_date ?
2013-10-02 10:28 <cedk> jeancavallo: yes
2013-10-02 10:31 <jeancavallo> cedk: Ok. Just so I know, the Timestamp field compatible with the datetime widget ? Or should I use a function field ?
2013-10-02 10:32 <cedk> jeancavallo: not compatible, timestamp is different of a datetime
2013-10-02 10:35 <jeancavallo> cedk: are domains comparing create_date with DateTime broken then ?
2013-10-02 10:39 <lids> "You mean it is forbidden to display create_date ?" <- isn't it worth a bug report ?
2013-10-02 10:40 <cedk> lids: if you want but give a valid example for the need
2013-10-02 10:40 <jeancavallo> lids: According to cedk it is intended behaviour
2013-10-02 10:41 <jeancavallo> cedk: Though I think it might be a good thing to provide a function field on ModelSQL to allow to display create_date in a DateTime format
2013-10-02 10:41 <lids> i'm not sure i understand everything, but displaying the creation date of a record seems legit to me
2013-10-02 10:42 <jeancavallo> lids: The thing is, right now, the creation date is stored as a Timestamp, which is not what i'd call human-readable
2013-10-02 10:43 <jeancavallo> lids: So displaying it requires a conversion to a Datetime
2013-10-02 10:43 <cedk> jeancavallo: not needed there are the log information
2013-10-02 10:43 <cedk> lids: it is not a date
2013-10-02 10:43 <Pilou> a binary field contains not human-readable but it can be displayed when it's an image
2013-10-02 10:44 <lids> ah, i understand the problem.. it would be great if the client could do the conversion
2013-10-02 10:44 <cedk> lids: it is done in log popup
2013-10-02 10:46 <Pilou> Users should be able to search, display, export create_date. Is it the case ?
2013-10-02 10:47 <cedk> Pilou: no because it is not a date
2013-10-02 10:47 <Pilou> (lol)
2013-10-02 10:48 <lids> well.. the log popup is not really user friendly, the information is at a different place than the other fields
2013-10-02 10:49 <lids> what about a timestamp widget then, if the type is a problem ?
2013-10-02 10:50 <cedk> lids: useless for users
2013-10-02 10:51 <jeancavallo> cedk: lids: I think lids is thinking about a widget which would be a datetime widget with an automatic conversion feature
2013-10-02 10:51 <pokoli> hi all, it's possible to load Many2Many fields with search value of .xml fields?
2013-10-02 10:51 <cedk> jeancavallo: a timestamp is not a datetime
2013-10-02 10:52 <jeancavallo> cedk: I know that, but it may be converted to one
2013-10-02 10:52 <cedk> jeancavallo: NO
2013-10-02 10:52 <cedk> jeancavallo: != precision
2013-10-02 10:54 <jeancavallo> cedk: I thoought datetime.datetime.fromtimestamp could do the trick. My bad if it does not
2013-10-02 11:03 <lids> cedk: syntax error
2013-10-02 11:05 <Pilou> There are use cases for which the precision of timestamp is sufficient. As there are use cases where Float is sufficient (compared to Numeric).
2013-10-02 11:07 <Pilou> By default, Tryton should not hide (nor make it difficult to access) informations: 'create_date' should be accessible as other fields.
2013-10-02 11:18 <cedk> Pilou: patch is welcome
2013-10-02 11:18 <Pilou> as always :)
2013-10-02 11:18 <cedk> Pilou: but it should work with any precision type of timestamp of all the database
2013-10-02 11:19 <cedk> Pilou: you just say fuzy generality instead of talking about real use case
2013-10-02 11:20 <Pilou> really ?
2013-10-02 11:26 <Pilou> A 'power user' want compute some statistics about some records created by users. He also wants to known how many records are created by year / month / week. He wants export these records with create_date and do some processing using LibreOffice.
2013-10-02 11:28 <cedk> Pilou: no need of timestamp, just define a date field
2013-10-02 11:28 <Pilou> no need of date field, there is create_date
2013-10-02 11:29 <cedk> Pilou: I don't thing LibreOffice recognise the timestamp as ??? but a date yes
2013-10-02 11:29 <cedk> Pilou: moreover those technical field are always the wrong data source for business interpretation
2013-10-02 11:40 <Pilou> The power user would user something like "=A1/86400+DATEVAL("1/1/1970")"
2013-10-02 11:40 <cedk> Pilou: patch is welcome
2013-10-02 11:41 <cedk> Pilou: looks like you are not one of those
2013-10-02 11:43 <Pilou> what do you mean ?
2013-10-02 12:52 -!- saxa_( has left #tryton
2013-10-02 15:27 <pokoli> Hi, I have the following error while updating a module
2013-10-02 15:27 <pokoli> The strange thing is that the module works perfectly if you install it, but you get this error when updating it
2013-10-02 15:28 <pokoli> could someone open my mind?
2013-10-02 15:30 <cedk> pokoli: probably res is not a dependency of the module
2013-10-02 15:32 <pokoli> cedk: thanks! That solved the problem :D
2013-10-02 18:53 -!- vcardon( has left #tryton

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!