IRC logs of #tryton for Thursday, 2019-02-07 #tryton log beginning Thu Feb 7 00:00:01 CET 2019
-!- smorillo(3e5248ee@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton23:01
-!- thaneor(~lenovo3@ has joined #tryton00:10
-!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton00:17
-!- Cullran(~Cullran@ has joined #tryton01:13
-!- Cullran(~Cullran@ has left #tryton01:13
-!- aleshark(~aleshark@ has joined #tryton03:08
-!- aleshark(~aleshark@ has left #tryton03:08
-!- yangoon( has joined #tryton03:11
-!- sturzus(~sturzus@ has joined #tryton03:39
-!- sturzus(~sturzus@ has left #tryton03:39
-!- smorillo(8965fb35@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton07:24
-!- smorillo(3e5248ee@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton07:29
-!- ion_cebotari( has joined #tryton07:38
-!- mrichez( has joined #tryton07:55
-!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton08:07
-!- smorillo(8965fb35@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton08:25
-!- nicoe( has joined #tryton08:35
-!- rpit( has joined #tryton08:36
-!- Timitos( has joined #tryton08:44
-!- smorillo(3e5248ee@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton08:51
-!- smorillo(8965fb35@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton09:24
-!- rpit( has joined #tryton09:36
-!- ion_cebotari( has joined #tryton09:54
-!- udono( has joined #tryton10:13
-!- mariomop( has joined #tryton10:55
-!- smorillo(8965fb35@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton11:26
-!- nzaniela(~nzaniela@ has joined #tryton11:38
-!- thaneor1(~lenovo3@ has joined #tryton12:11
-!- csotelo(~csotelo@2800:200:f410:adb:2d8a:7caa:d18d:8442) has joined #tryton12:40
-!- csotelo_(~csotelo@ has joined #tryton13:16
mrichezhi, is the states={ 'required':...} a priority against 'required = True' in a field definition ? Or should i first override to set required = False and the define the state ?14:53
nicoemrichez: It doesn't make sense to have required=True for a field and required defined in the states14:57
nicoemrichez: because required=True in the fields will make the column not nullable14:57
nicoemrichez: in the sql database14:57
-!- smorillo(258799fc@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton14:58
mricheznicoe: so i have to set required = False and then define my state 'required' with my evaluation15:01
cedkmrichez: I think states prevails, but as nicoe said required will be enforced on server side15:02
cedkso it should be used only to allow client not filling it but you need code on server side to fill it15:02
mrichezcedk: it concerns a description field which is required , i would like to customize to set this field required only if party is empty15:05
cedkmrichez: it is usually a bad idea to try to remove required from standard because other code may rely on it15:06
mrichezcedk: indeed, i found another place where this field is used :-) I forget my update15:08
mrichezcedk: i think it's linked to legacy code, it concerns sale_opportunity module, description is required and used to create the sale but description in the sale module is not required... And in our case, users don't know what to type in the field description as they always write a party... Maybe i'll use a default value for this field..15:14
cedkmrichez: humm, it looks like an unecessary constraint15:16
mrichezcedk: i think so15:16
mrichezcedk: should i open an issue to remove this constraint ?15:16
cedkmrichez: yes please15:16
-!- smorillo(3e5248ee@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton15:17
mrichezcedk: ok15:17
csotelo_Hi all, I have applied this article [] to share parties, however I have an issue on create relation ships between parties and users, since on party there is a relationship to the related user on the res.user model on my first scheme, then if I want to create a relationship bewteen a party and my second scheme, the database constraint restriction to the res_user table breaks the relationship, I was15:37
csotelo_guessing on drop that constraint, and for been honest all constraints on party_party since all of them are point to fist scheme tables, what do you think? cedk any suggest?15:37
csotelo_cedk, sorry to mention on the chat, but since it is your article I do the mention15:38
cedkcsotelo_: there is no more foreign key constraint for create_uid and write_uid15:40
csotelo_"party_party_internal_user_fkey" FOREIGN KEY (internal_user) REFERENCES scheme2.res_user(id) ON DELETE SET NULL15:41
csotelo_cedk, I refer to insternal user relationship15:42
csotelo_I am using tryton 4.215:42
cedkcsotelo_: I do not know what that is15:42
csotelo_cedk, it is created for the party_party and res_user relationship to associate a party to a user15:43
csotelo_cedk, I have found where is the relationship between them, it is on health/ line15:45
csotelo_and, yes, It was created to associate a party to a tryton user15:47
-!- smorillo(258799fc@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton15:48
csotelo_cedk, what do you think on drop constraints?15:50
csotelo_according the it could look ok15:50
cedkcsotelo_: look very suspicious code15:52
csotelo_yes, I know... and for practical use, break my implementation. At now, drop constraints work for me, I hope find later a better way to manage that15:53
cedkcsotelo_: you should see with GNU Health why it is there and why mixing technical stuff with referential data15:55
csotelo_but is probably a nice proposal to implement since could be ok associate a party to a user15:55
csotelo_cedk, Yes, but an opinion from the article author, is a nice point to start this topic15:55
-!- ion_cebotari( has joined #tryton16:12
pokolicsotelo_: the user constraint is removed on tryton 4.418:04
csotelo_pokoli, nice too know, thanks!18:29
csotelo_I will update that18:30
-!- lukio(~lukio@ has joined #tryton19:26
lukioHi everyone. Perhaps this is a dumb question, but I need to cancel a payment of an invoice, and I don't found how to achieve it. At Argentina, we develop our own suite to achieve the payments, and we have the posibility to cancel the payment (so a cancel move is generated). Here, I have an implementation that I'm not using this suite, and I need to cancel it but I don't understand how.19:29
lukioThanks in advance!19:30
Timitoslukio: if i remember correctly you only need to unreconcile the payment and the invoice. that should do it20:25
lukioHi Timitos, thanks! As u said, I understand that it should work as u said (I took a look at
lukiobut, how do i unreconcile the payment? I did not see any button or wizard to do it.20:29
Timitoslukio: you mean on the client? if you open the move of the invoice from the invoice form view and then right click on the move line with the reconciliation then you have an action to undo the reconciliation there20:37
Timitosyou need to reload the invoice to see the result after executing the action like this20:38
lukioTimitos: thanks a lot!!20:42
-!- semarie_(~semarie@unaffiliated/semarie) has joined #tryton21:00
-!- smorillo(3e5248ee@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton21:52
-!- lukio( has joined #tryton22:20
-!- lukio( has left #tryton22:21
-!- smorillo(258799fc@gateway/web/cgi-irc/ has joined #tryton22:33
-!- mariomop( has joined #tryton22:39

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!