IRC logs of #tryton for Friday, 2020-05-08 #tryton log beginning Fri 08 May 2020 12:00:01 AM CEST
-!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton01:05
-!- lucascastro( has joined #tryton02:05
-!- springwurm(~Springwur@ has joined #tryton06:05
-!- paolo(~paolo@unaffiliated/paolo) has joined #tryton07:05
-!- mrichez(~Maxime@2a02:a03f:467c:d500:a385:4ecf:c4ea:d8cf) has joined #tryton07:05
-!- Moondhum(6e2c7c8c@unaffiliated/moondhum) has joined #tryton08:05
MoondhumI want to try tryton for my retail business. I am looking for a POS module, where can I get it?08:05
semarieMoondhum: there is only a WIP module : , but nothing usable "as it" in standard modules08:05
semariethere is also third party module (untested). see for details08:05
-!- nicoe(~nicoe@2a02:578:852a:c00:7e2a:31ff:fe5e:b25d) has joined #tryton08:05
Moondhumsemarie thank you, I'll take a look.08:05
-!- Timitos(~kpreisler@2001:a61:400:901:762b:62ff:fe84:ed7e) has joined #tryton08:05
-!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton09:05
-!- rpit( has joined #tryton09:05
-!- nicoe(~nicoe@2a02:578:852a:c00:7e2a:31ff:fe5e:b25d) has joined #tryton09:05
-!- thaneor( has joined #tryton10:05
mrichezhi, in supplier shipments, when duplicating a shipment in received state, inventory moves are kept.... bug ?11:05
pokolimrichez: not sure about with, which is the behaviour when duplicating a customer shipment?11:05
mrichezwhen duplicating , state is going back to draft... incoming moves should be kept, but inventory moves are created when clicking on "received"...11:05
mrichezin this case, inventory moves are already there in draft state, so when receiving shipment in you have twice inventory moves11:05
mrichezbehaviour is easy to reproduce on demo ... create a supplier shipment, add some product, receive shipment, then duplicate shipment...  new duplicated shipment (draft) has already inventory moves...12:05
cedkmrichez: what is the problem in having inventory moves?12:05
cedkmrichez: on waiting the inventory moves are deleted before being recreated12:05
-!- mariomop(~quassel@ has joined #tryton12:05
mrichezcedk: i got 2 inventory moves after doing "receive"13:05
cedkmrichez: but waiting should have delete the copied one13:05
mrichezcedk: waiting is draft status ? . status is draft, received, done.... when duplicating a received shipment, got a new one in draft state, incoming move is there, inventory move already there.. when doing "receive", i get 2 inventory moves instead of one..13:05
cedkmrichez: are you talking about customer or supplier shipments?13:05
mrichezcedk: supplier shipment... created manually...13:05
cedkmrichez: ok I think receive method should delete inventory moves like wait does for the customer shipment13:05
mrichezcedk: ok so keeping inventory moves in draft mode is not a problem ? it's no best to delete moves when doing copy ?13:05
cedkmrichez: it will be complicated because you can not use defaults as you have distinct incoming from inventory13:05
cedkfor me as the workflow create inventory no matter, it should delete before13:05
mrichezcedk: ok13:05
mrichezcedk: inventory moves could be readonly in draft mode also ? to prevent user to fill some data that will be deleted13:05
cedkmrichez: yes13:05
mrichezcedk: ok13:05
mrichezcedk: i see deleting inventory moves is done in the "draft" method... could we simply call the draft method in the copy method ? if i add delete inventory moves in the "receive" method , is the delete useful in the "draft" method ?14:05
-!- jcm(~jcm@ has joined #tryton14:05
-!- lucas_( has joined #tryton14:05
mrichezstill with my supplier_shipments, it's about the state of a function field inventory_moves...
mrichezstate is readonly when in 'draft', 'done', 'cancel', ... but when my supplier shipment is in 'draft' state, i can still update the inventory_move14:05
-!- mariomop(~quassel@ has joined #tryton14:05
cedkmrichez: yes readonly on O2M is only about adding or removing15:05
mrichezso how to prevent to edit data ?15:05
cedkmrichez: you have to manage readonly for each field15:05
cedkmrichez: but in this case, I think we do not care15:05
mrichezcedk: ok15:05
mrichezcedk: for such case, could we imagine multiple fields to be in a "virtual group" ... and this group could have a state...15:05
mrichezso all the fields of the same virtual group would be readonly in some conditions, etc...15:05
cedkmrichez: readonly should not be managed by the view but the model15:05
mrichezcedk: "group" would a new attribute for field in the model15:05
-!- thaneor1(~ldlc6@ has joined #tryton15:05
-!- semarie(~semarie@unaffiliated/semarie) has joined #tryton15:05
cedkmrichez: not sure we need to add a new intermediary access right level15:05
mrichezcedk: ok just a suggestion :-)15:05
-!- rmu|w( has joined #tryton16:05
-!- nicoe(~nicoe@2a02:578:852a:c00:7e2a:31ff:fe5e:b25d) has joined #tryton21:05

Generated by 2.16.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!