| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Tue Jul 14 00:00:03 CEST 2015 | ||
| -!- smarro(~sebastian@190.105.68.82) has joined #tryton | 00:29 | |
| -!- jcnorman(~jcnorman@24-197-138-90.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com) has joined #tryton | 00:58 | |
| -!- jcnorman(~jcnorman@24-197-138-90.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com) has joined #tryton | 01:14 | |
| -!- jcnorman(~jcnorman@24-197-138-90.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com) has joined #tryton | 01:30 | |
| -!- smarro(~sebastian@190.105.93.196) has joined #tryton | 01:37 | |
| -!- pablovannini(~pablo@186.18.46.165) has joined #tryton | 02:16 | |
| -!- frispete(~frispete@p54A90010.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #tryton | 06:40 | |
| -!- udono(~udono@ip-178-202-238-79.hsi09.unitymediagroup.de) has joined #tryton | 06:43 | |
| -!- VaticanCameos(~pritishc@182.68.223.3) has joined #tryton | 06:55 | |
| -!- LordVan(~LordVan@gentoo/developer/LordVan) has joined #tryton | 06:59 | |
| -!- yangoon(~mathiasb@p549F1961.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #tryton | 07:01 | |
| -!- Telesight(~anthony@4dafe0c0.ftth.telfortglasvezel.nl) has joined #tryton | 07:58 | |
| -!- digitalsatori(~Thunderbi@125.7.119.155) has joined #tryton | 08:17 | |
| -!- digitalsatori(~Thunderbi@125.7.119.155) has joined #tryton | 08:30 | |
| -!- digitalsatori(~Thunderbi@125.7.119.155) has joined #tryton | 08:38 | |
| -!- rpit(~rpit@2a02:908:e670:6ac0:1425:148d:949:6c88) has joined #tryton | 08:42 | |
| -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | 08:50 | |
| -!- VaticanCameos(~pritishc@182.68.223.3) has joined #tryton | 09:05 | |
| -!- digitalsatori(~Thunderbi@125.7.119.155) has joined #tryton | 09:09 | |
| -!- digitalsatori(~Thunderbi@125.7.119.155) has joined #tryton | 09:11 | |
| -!- pokoli(~pokoli@unaffiliated/pokoli) has joined #tryton | 09:21 | |
| -!- michael-kohlhaas(~michael-k@unaffiliated/michael-kohlhaas) has joined #tryton | 09:45 | |
| -!- digitalsatori(~Thunderbi@125.7.119.155) has joined #tryton | 10:14 | |
| -!- nicoe(~nicoe@balisto.wifi.b2ck.com) has joined #tryton | 10:31 | |
| -!- Telesight(~anthony@4dafe0c0.ftth.telfortglasvezel.nl) has joined #tryton | 10:42 | |
| -!- Telesight(~anthony@4dafe0c0.ftth.telfortglasvezel.nl) has joined #tryton | 10:49 | |
| -!- VaticanCameos(~pritishc@182.68.223.3) has joined #tryton | 11:06 | |
| -!- Telesight(~anthony@4dafe0c0.ftth.telfortglasvezel.nl) has joined #tryton | 11:29 | |
| -!- Telesight(~anthony@4dafe0c0.ftth.telfortglasvezel.nl) has joined #tryton | 12:05 | |
| -!- mariomop(~quassel@host123.190-138-108.telecom.net.ar) has joined #tryton | 13:10 | |
| -!- Telesight(~anthony@4dafe0c0.ftth.telfortglasvezel.nl) has joined #tryton | 13:31 | |
| -!- cinik(~smilicic@cpe-188-252-142-163.zg5.cable.xnet.hr) has joined #tryton | 13:44 | |
| cinik | Hello! | 13:44 |
|---|---|---|
| cinik | I have a question - someone may be able to help me; I'm porting my own modules from tryton 3.4 to tryton 3.6, but I have problems with json in form->group->states attributes. | 13:46 |
| cinik | Sorry - had some nickname issues | 13:51 |
| cinik | Anyway, I'm porting my old states="{'invisbile': Bool(Not(Equal(Eval('type_'),'N')))}" to something, and I get either of the following errors: | 13:52 |
| cinik | if I use proper JSON, {"invisble": "Eval(\"type_\") != \"N\" "}, then PYSON complains of getting a string. | 13:53 |
| cinik | if I skip the quotes, JSON complains about syntax errors | 13:53 |
| cinik | this happens both with stock json and simplejson | 13:54 |
| cinik | please help me :) | 13:54 |
| -!- kstenger(~karla@200.124.209.158) has joined #tryton | 13:55 | |
| -!- rpit(~rpit@2a02:908:e670:6ac0:e037:d91f:e8bb:3f2e) has joined #tryton | 14:10 | |
| cedk | cinik: the simpliest is to use http://doc.tryton.org/3.6/trytond/doc/ref/models/models.html?highlight=view_attribute#trytond.model.ModelView.view_attributes | 14:21 |
| -!- juanfe(~juanfe@190.85.115.49) has joined #tryton | 14:43 | |
| -!- jcnorman(~jcnorman@24-197-138-90.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com) has joined #tryton | 15:04 | |
| -!- jcnorman_(~jcnorman@24-197-138-90.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com) has joined #tryton | 15:08 | |
| -!- bvillasanti(~bvillasan@181.16.21.34) has joined #tryton | 15:33 | |
| -!- nicoe(~nicoe@ptr-178-50-65-110.dyn.mobistar.be) has joined #tryton | 15:36 | |
| -!- smarro(~sebastian@181.192.57.21) has joined #tryton | 15:43 | |
| -!- nicoe(~nicoe@82-212-130-50.teledisnet.be) has joined #tryton | 16:03 | |
| cinik | cedk: thanks ... I didn't find it obvious from the documentation; quite the opposite, as the docs say "PYSON string" for the state attribute, I kept repeatedly shoving PYSON down in XML and hoping for a different result. :) | 16:10 |
| cinik | One more thing I'im interested - a some what philosophical/UX question: ModelSingleton (and similar concepts) rely on default_get, which in the client is automatically regarded as changed without saving; so if you open a singleton form just to check something, it asks you to save changes. That is very confusing and annoying. Is there a way around that? | 16:13 |
| cedk | cinik: don't understand what is wrong with "PYSON string" | 16:13 |
| cedk | cinik: no | 16:14 |
| cedk | cinik: but patch is welcomed | 16:14 |
| cinik | cedk: the problem is that it's not obvious from the docs that you have to put xml attributes in the python code when doing what I wanted to do... | 16:15 |
| cedk | cinik: you are not required to do so | 16:16 |
| cedk | cinik: you can put a PYSON string | 16:16 |
| cinik | I tried, but it wouldn't evaluate (my original question: either it fails as JSON or it fails as PYSON) | 16:18 |
| cedk | cinik: it works, you probably did not correctly encoded in the XML | 16:19 |
| cedk | cinik: that's why the ModelView.view_attributes is simplier because it does the job correctly | 16:19 |
| cinik | cedk: yup, but the docs don't hint that at all, and also they don't give an example of xml-embedded PYSON for 3.6 (it worked for 3.4) | 16:21 |
| cedk | cinik: patch is welcome | 16:22 |
| cinik | cedk: I'll try to get around to it | 16:22 |
| cinik | cedk: also, for the singleton issue, I am afraid that it would require patching the protocol on both sides (something on the lines of a ModelView.default_record method that the client would ask for first). | 16:24 |
| cinik | cedk: what I wonder is how much that would be against some tryton metapriciple | 16:24 |
| cedk | cinik: don't understand | 16:25 |
| cinik | cedk: as far as I see it, if the client opens a form for a model not from a tree view, it automatically assumes creating a new object and calls ModelView.default_get... patching that would require patching the protocol on the client side and adding a method on the server side. I wonder if there is something inherently untrytonic (analogous to unpythonic) in doing that. | 16:28 |
| cedk | cinik: ModelSingleton should not be a special case | 16:35 |
| cinik | cedk: I completly agree - that's why I'm looking into a more general fix - suppose we add to ModelView a method called default_record that retruns a single record id or None so that every time a client opens a form directly from an action (not from a tree view), it first asks for default_record, and if it gets None, it goes to ModelView.default_get, otherwise it goes to read the record. | 16:47 |
| cedk | cinik: I don't see the logical for such call | 16:48 |
| cinik | cedk: currently, when the client is to open a form without any prior information (eg. the default action in the main menu opens a form), the client calls assumes the user wants to create a new record. Right? | 17:00 |
| cinik | cedk: sorry, should have been "the client calls model.default_get assuming the user wants to create a new record" | 17:01 |
| -!- bvillasanti(~bvillasan@181.16.21.34) has joined #tryton | 17:08 | |
| cedk | cinik: yes but it normal to call default_get when creating a record | 17:10 |
| cinik | cedk: of course it is, but my point given no prior information, the client, whent asked to open a form, assumes the user wants to create a new form | 17:15 |
| cinik | cedk: that assumption fails for the singleton (naturally), and could possibly fail for some other conecpts (for example a model for user's own settings and information) | 17:16 |
| cinik | (sorry, that should have been "assumes the user wants to create a new record") | 17:16 |
| cedk | cinik: but a singleton doesn't necessary exist prior | 17:19 |
| cinik | cedk: sure it doesn't - but the client should check first for a default record, and only if none is found should it attempt to create one | 17:21 |
| cedk | cinik: I don't agree because it leads to ackward behaviour | 17:23 |
| cedk | cinik: what if there is more than 1 record? Which one is shown? | 17:23 |
| cinik | cedk: the model is to answer which one should it regard as the default. I think the method should live in the ModelStorage class, returning by default None | 17:24 |
| cedk | cinik: don't understand | 17:25 |
| cinik | cedk: then, for example, if you implement a UserSettings model for some use, you want the user to be able to edit only their own settings, and the method should return the user id as the default record | 17:25 |
| cedk | cinik: I don't understand what you mean by "default" | 17:25 |
| cedk | cinik: I don't see any generic behaviour in your examples | 17:25 |
| cinik | cedk: the behaviour of the client is if you open a form and there's no record selected, create a new one, right? | 17:27 |
| cedk | cinik: what do you mean by "record selected"? | 17:29 |
| cinik | cedk: if the form view has a lower sequence number than the tree view, and you open that view, then the client automatically goes for default_get to create a new record | 17:31 |
| cedk | cinik: not necessary | 17:32 |
| cedk | cinik: it depends of the action | 17:32 |
| cinik | cedk: how? | 17:32 |
| cedk | cinik: look at the code | 17:33 |
| -!- digitalsatori(~Thunderbi@203.35.234.18) has joined #tryton | 17:46 | |
| cinik | cedk: if res_id for a Form is not set in the client, it goes for a new record; I'm proposing that if res_id is not set and the view_type is form to first ask for something like common.MODELACCESS[self.model]['default-record'] and if that fails (returns None or False), goes for sig_new | 17:48 |
| cinik | cedk: (thanks for making me find my way through the client code - I've been dreading that up until now :) ) | 17:48 |
| cedk | cinik: I don't see the point to add an extra call while res_id is already doing the job | 17:50 |
| cinik | cedk: Actually it's not - if it is not set, it resorts to creating a record; I think it's up to the server (i.e. the model) to decide what to do when a form is opened without res_id being set. | 17:52 |
| cedk | cinik: no it is create a double specs | 17:54 |
| cinik | cedk: sorry, I didn't understand that | 17:55 |
| cedk | cinik: there is already a parameter to do what you want: res_id | 17:55 |
| cedk | cinik: probably a solution will be to have a generic wizard that returns the right action (with res_id filled) to use on any singleton | 18:16 |
| -!- kstenger(~karla@200.124.209.158) has joined #tryton | 18:34 | |
| -!- jcnorman(~jcnorman@24-197-138-90.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com) has joined #tryton | 19:03 | |
| -!- sunny_dealmeida(~quassel@203.115.83.43) has joined #tryton | 19:58 | |
| -!- cinik(~smilicic@cpe-188-252-142-163.zg5.cable.xnet.hr) has joined #tryton | 20:15 | |
| -!- rainer_s1nstwo(~rainer@pd956864b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #tryton | 20:25 | |
| -!- FvD(~Thunderbi@ip95-153-64-186.ct.co.cr) has joined #tryton | 21:36 | |
| -!- FvD(~Thunderbi@ip95-153-64-186.ct.co.cr) has joined #tryton | 21:37 | |
| -!- smarro(~sebastian@181.192.57.21) has joined #tryton | 21:40 | |
| -!- pokoli(~pokoli@unaffiliated/pokoli) has joined #tryton | 21:51 | |
| -!- michael-kohlhaas(~michael-k@unaffiliated/michael-kohlhaas) has joined #tryton | 22:03 | |
| -!- FvD(~Thunderbi@ip95-153-64-186.ct.co.cr) has joined #tryton | 22:07 | |
| -!- FvD(~Thunderbi@ip95-153-64-186.ct.co.cr) has joined #tryton | 22:17 | |
| -!- pokoli(~pokoli@unaffiliated/pokoli) has joined #tryton | 22:21 | |
| -!- nineinchnick(~jwas@109.231.22.187) has joined #tryton | 22:24 | |
| -!- smarro(~sebastian@181.192.57.21) has joined #tryton | 22:29 | |
| -!- FvD(~Thunderbi@ip95-153-64-186.ct.co.cr) has joined #tryton | 22:30 | |
| -!- alimon(alimon@nat/intel/x-gnneymyqpexanntb) has joined #tryton | 23:28 | |
| -!- smarro(~sebastian@181.192.57.21) has joined #tryton | 23:47 | |
| -!- jcnorman(~jcnorman@24-197-138-90.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com) has joined #tryton | 23:52 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!