| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Fri Jun 20 00:00:01 CEST 2008 | ||
| 2008-06-20 01:25 -!- irclog(n=irclog@tycho.b2ck.com) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 05:19 -!- yangoon(n=mathiasb@p549F4B92.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 08:18 -!- gadaga(n=gael@sednaco19320-gw.clients.easynet.fr) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 08:18 <gadaga> hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 08:20 <udono> gadaga: hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 08:20 <gadaga> udono: hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 08:27 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 08:29 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 10:39 <CIA-53> tryton: htgoebel roundup * #143/add VAT number validation: [new] Validation of VAT ID is required for invicing to EU-countries without VAT. Validation for German ID-Holders is available at <http://evatr.b ... | ||
| 2008-06-20 10:41 <CIA-53> tryton: htgoebel roundup * #107/Anmerkungen zu German Translations (Deutsche Übersetzungen): Hallo Franz, ein paar schnell heruntergeschriebene Dinge, die mir bei den Übersetzungen zu relations aufgefallen sind: Straße (bis) -> Straße ... | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:24 -!- FWiesing(n=FWiesing@194.208.185.12) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:24 <FWiesing> good morning | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:25 <Timitos> FWiesing: hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:26 <FWiesing> Timitos: udono: do you read my e-mail from yesterday about linux-day? | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:26 <FWiesing> what's your opinion? | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:26 <Timitos> FWiesing: yes. i have to think about but sounds good | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:26 <udono> FWiesing: yes, I read it. | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:27 <FWiesing> I got a call from a guy, which is interested - I will meet him in the afternoon | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:28 <udono> FWiesing: interested in what? LinuxDay? or tryton? | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:28 <FWiesing> - he want to use the erp-system | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:28 <udono> FWiesing: ah, ok | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:28 <FWiesing> in tryton - he didn't know the name! | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:30 <udono> about Linuxday: This sounds interesting. | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:31 <FWiesing> End of september it will be decided which presentations on the linux day are shown. It seems, that it is for commercial interested people - exactly our thing | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:31 <FWiesing> last year there was a presentation about document mangement (open source) - maybe this year agai | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:31 <FWiesing> again | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:32 <FWiesing> so I think a presentation of erp/crm-systems would be a interest point on this day | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:33 <FWiesing> but I didn't know any details at the moment - end of september I can tell you more | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:33 <udono> FWiesing: its a small meeting, IMHO the right place for a first presentation... | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:34 <FWiesing> Indeed - it's small - but last year there are 1.000 visitors | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:37 <FWiesing> last question - The link from my homepage is at the moment not public because I first want to hear your opinion - could I publish the text with information of the new erp-system? | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:38 <FWiesing> http://www.roadrunnerserver.com/index.php?id=19 | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:43 <Timitos> FWiesing: ich sehe keinen grund, warum du das nicht online stellen könntest. leg einfach los. | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:46 <FWiesing> ok - it's just for your information. | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:46 <FWiesing> afk | ||
| 2008-06-20 11:56 <FWiesing> back | ||
| 2008-06-20 12:01 -!- kultviech(n=kultviec@p5B0D1F14.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 12:02 <FWiesing> hi kultviech | ||
| 2008-06-20 12:15 -!- kultviech(n=kultviec@p5B0D1F14.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 12:37 <FWiesing> cu | ||
| 2008-06-20 12:37 -!- FWiesing(n=FWiesing@194.208.185.12) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:03 <Timitos> cedk: hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:04 <cedk> Timitos: hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:05 <Timitos> cedk: lets talk about historical data, ok? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:05 <cedk> Timitos: ok, I have just a phone and I'm ready | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:05 <Timitos> cedk: i will wait. don´t hurry. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:08 <cedk> Timitos: I'm back | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:08 <udono> hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:08 <Timitos> cedk: ok | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:09 <Timitos> cedk: did you think about this topic since our meeting in the of april? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:09 <cedk> a little | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:09 <cedk> I have an idea about how to implement it | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:09 <Timitos> i also made some thoughts. i think we should throw in what we have | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:10 <Timitos> i also tried to find a solution how to implement it. but there are some issues open. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:10 <Timitos> so whats your idea? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:11 <cedk> I think modify the ORM to be able to create a history object that have the same DB columns than the original but whithout any constraint | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:12 <cedk> this object can be create on the fly with a attribute on the first object | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:12 <cedk> so once we have it, each time the method write is call on the objec, it duplicate the record on the other table | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:13 <Timitos> so we will have two tables for this object? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:13 <cedk> yes | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:13 <Timitos> ok | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:13 <cedk> one real like now and one for the history | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:13 <Timitos> why not trying to implement in the existing table? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:13 <cedk> after that we modify the read function to accept a date argument | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:14 <cedk> Timitos: I don't think that we can use easily the postgresql behavior that you send me previously | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:15 <Timitos> cedk: i also think, that the behavior needs to be different. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:15 <cedk> it will be difficult to handle migration | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:16 <Timitos> cedk: i think i throw in my thoughts now. i tried to find a solution for one table. then we can compare our ideas, ok? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:16 <cedk> ok | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:18 <Timitos> so, if you define an object with a historical table you need a field which puts all records together which belong to the same record (a little bit difficult to explain) | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:19 <Timitos> so you have a record customer called "Heinz" an every time you change a field of the record heinz, a new record will made. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:19 <cedk> it must be the id as we use it as external key | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:19 <Timitos> this is similar to what you want to do with the second table | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:20 <Timitos> but the id is for all records belonging to "Heinz" the same, right? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:22 <Timitos> so now, if you open the record in a view always the record with the newest creation date will be shown | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:23 <udono> ... cedk: you can do that with ORDER BY date asc LIMIT 1 ... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:23 <Timitos> yes. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:23 <Timitos> now you use this table in a relation | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:24 <Timitos> if you choose a record you must use the "id" which is for all records which belong together the same. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:24 <Timitos> i don´t know if i explained this very good. hope you understand what i mean | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:25 <udono> Timitos: but there are problem on constraints. With a one table Version we need to maintain the ids in python, but that is bad, I think... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:27 <Timitos> udono: i don´t know if this is problematic. but this would have been also with the solution described from postgresql. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:27 <Timitos> cedk: your opinion to udonos msg? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:29 <Timitos> udono: cedk: i only try to find a solution with only one table. i had not the idea with to tables. i only think that we should discuss more than one idea because it is a tricky topic. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:29 <Timitos> so i will go on with my thoughts | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:30 <udono> timitos: yes | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:30 <cedk> I agree with udono for the contsraint | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:31 <cedk> with one table, there will be I think many difficulty with constraint | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:31 <cedk> like unique constraint that we use to check the integrity of the system | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:32 <Timitos> ACTION is thinking | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:33 <cedk> and an other thing is the migration, if for a new version we add a new field that is required, we must fill all the historic data with default value | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:33 <cedk> instead of just all active data | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:34 <cedk> and one more, it is about delete record. If we use one table how do we now that a record is deleted | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:34 <cedk> we must delete all the history | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:34 <cedk> but with two table, we delete in the first table but keep the history in the second | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:35 <Timitos> cedk: i think your idea is easier to implement. i will shut up :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:35 <cedk> Timitos: In fact, I have already seen this kind of implementation in a previous company where I work | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:36 <cedk> :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:36 <cedk> but it was using SQL trigger | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:37 <cedk> and it was on oracle and I think there is a function to create a history table | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:38 <Timitos> cedk: one question. how would you define an object as historic? do you define this in the object itself or would you define this in a realtion field ? because you need to have a function to save a historic date for the relation field | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:38 <cedk> One thing, we need once we have historic object, is to be able to give on a many2one, many2many a date | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:39 <Timitos> yes. i think this can be done within workflow in most cases | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:39 <cedk> Timitos: I think that historic object must be create automicaly with one attributes on the object | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:40 <Timitos> cedk: i agree | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:40 <cedk> but for the date to use in relation field, I'm not sure | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:40 <Timitos> cedk: an idea... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:41 <Timitos> cedk: perhaps you can make an attribute on relation field like "historical=True/False" | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:41 <Timitos> if it is true a date_field for the relation is created. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:41 <cedk> Timitos: yes but we need a date in fact | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:41 <Timitos> but there is another question. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:42 <cedk> I was thinking about give in argument the name of the date field to use | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:42 <Timitos> do we need to have a date field for every relation field or only for the complete record? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:42 <cedk> like 'create_date' or 'invoice_date' etc... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:42 <Timitos> cedk: good idea | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:42 <cedk> Timitos: I think that the date must come from the record and not from the relation | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:42 <cedk> and for many2one there is no relation table | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:43 <udono> cedk: Timitos, The best solution in my opinion would be one, where the framework maintain the history. A fields.* will be another internal and external representation when it is historical or not. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:43 <udono> ... but I know its hard to realize... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:43 <Timitos> cedk: i don´t understand completly | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:44 <cedk> udono: I don't understand | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:44 <cedk> Timitos: what? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:44 <Timitos> cedk: the date must come from the record? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:45 <udono> cedk: gimme a minute, I try to explain... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:45 <cedk> Timitos: ha, like for example the invoice: the date where the party must be read is the date of the invoice | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:45 <Timitos> i think we should talk form table a and table b. perhaps we can understand each other better. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:45 <Timitos> cedk: ok. but... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:45 <cedk> Timitos: or object and historic object | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:46 <Timitos> cedk: reverse | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:46 <Timitos> cedk: i start again | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:46 <Timitos> cedk: for invoice the date is clear | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:47 <Timitos> cedk: all reation fields depend in history on the invoice date | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:47 <cedk> Timitos: in fact I think it is more the date when we open the invoice | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:48 <Timitos> cedk: but could it be that the relation field can have different historical dates? if this case can be then we need for every relation field a date_field | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:48 <Timitos> cedk: yes. it is the date of opening the invoice | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:48 <cedk> Timitos: yes, it will be like this: party = fields.Many2One('relationship.party', 'Party', history='invoice_date') | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:49 <cedk> Timitos: so I think it need to be on each fields | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:50 <cedk> udono: still don't understand your idea? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:50 <Timitos> cedk: on this way i can define in one object more different dates. great. perhaps we need this. but i don´t know a case yet. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:51 <Timitos> cedk: yes i think your idea is a great solution for the topic | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:51 <cedk> Timitos: but there is some works :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:51 <Timitos> cedk: yes i know :-( | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:52 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:52 <cedk> Timitos: one more think we need, is a view to see all the history of a record | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:53 <Timitos> cedk: is this a big problem? i think not | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:53 <cedk> Timitos: no, but it can be well integrate in the client | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:53 <cedk> Timitos: perhaps something like timemachine | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:53 <Timitos> you mean a widget? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:53 <Timitos> tekknokrat: hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:54 <cedk> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/timemachine.html | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:54 <udono> cedk: that I ment with internal and external representation... the external view could be an autogenerated view... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:55 <cedk> udono: what do you mean by external/internal | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:55 <tekknokrat> hi Timitos | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:55 <udono> cedk: internal is the object structure for historical objects, external is the view of the historical datas to the user... | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:55 <udono> hi tekknokrat | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:56 <Timitos> udono: i don´t understand you too. | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:56 <tekknokrat> hi, udono | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:56 <cedk> udono: ok, do you know timemachine? | ||
| 2008-06-20 14:59 <udono> Its the same direction cedk walk, I think, maybe just other words. We need to show how each field type of an object behave in historical context... this should be standardized. Than we can generate a automated view for the historical data... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:00 <udono> cedk: yes the concept sounds great. Its a mixture of historical immutability and revisioning system... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:00 <cedk> udono: we already have a automatic view generator | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:01 <Timitos> cedk: what ideas do you have on this historic view? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:01 <cedk> Timitos: not yet really think | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:02 <cedk> first think was to use the view of the object but it can be not enough | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:02 <udono> cedk: yes, I know... but it would be great if we can implement historical data as transparent as possible. So we could autogenerate historical views on each object possible... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:02 <cedk> we can have tree view, a list view order by date, the current form view of the object, and a default one that is constructed with all historical field | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:03 <Timitos> perhaps we can first have a list with the revisions. then you can select the revision and see the content. but this can be done with the normal object view. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:03 <udono> cedk: yes, this could be the right way | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:03 <Timitos> cedk: everything of your ideas sounds good to me. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:03 <cedk> or is it usefull to be able to see past record field that is no more used ? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:04 <cedk> or we can store the history of the view also, and use the one that match with the date | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:05 <cedk> but this case, you can see only one record per view | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:06 <udono> cedk: yes, we have to pay attantion about the views... the historical datas need to fit into the view. So it could be the right way, to save the view with the data. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:08 <cedk> udono: not save the view with the data, but historised the ir.ui.view object :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:08 <udono> cedk: ok | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:09 <cedk> just a new thought, we need also duplicate relation table of a historised object | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:09 <cedk> like the tables for many2many | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:11 <udono> cedk: the object level history will be a big implementation... what about the smaller implementation of a just field level history for the first? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:12 <udono> cedk: about the last thought: yes, we need this if we like a real time machine. Than it could be possible to went back to an old date and show the complet system state this time... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:15 <udono> cedk: ... this will be the greatest, but most sophisticated... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:16 <Timitos> cedk: i vote for an easy version | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:16 <udono> Timitos: me too, I dont know if we are going to implement oracle into postgres :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:17 <Timitos> :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:18 <Timitos> cedk: do you think that what we discussed can be implemented or are there some bigger problems? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:19 <udono> Timitos: on the other side I vote for an expandable small start version... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:21 <Timitos> udono: yes. but i think that the small solution cedk mentioned can be extended without problems. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:22 <Timitos> cedk: i think storing the history of the view is not needed in the first round. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:22 <udono> Timitos: the Version cedk metioned is for me the big solution, I am looking for a smaller... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:23 <udono> cedk: how could the history table look like? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:23 <udono> cedk: is it possible to freeze tryton objects and put them into the db? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:23 <Timitos> cedk: with the historical solution we also can handle audit trail i think | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:25 <cedk> udono: no, browse record are not really objects | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:25 <cedk> udono: it is the DB record that have all the information | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:26 <cedk> I think use historical object like I say will be not to complicate | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:27 <cedk> but need some times, especially for testing | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:27 <cedk> handling many2many history can be made later | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:27 <cedk> and the view also, because generally we don't remove field but instead add | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:28 <cedk> so having the last view will not be a problem | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:28 <Timitos> cedk: +1 | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:29 <udono> Timitos: But for audittrail we need to save which actions are done by which user at a timestamp. But historical data may enrich the audittrail by the real changes... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:30 <cedk> udono: action will be the difference between two history records | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:30 <Timitos> udono: yes i forgot actions that are not changes to a record | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:30 <cedk> udono: and we can add the user name to the history table | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:30 <cedk> Timitos: what action that doesn't change record ? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:31 <udono> cedk: yes, combining audittrail and history would be good. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:31 <Timitos> cedk: perhaps some workflow? perhaps? perhaps i am confused? :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:32 <cedk> Timitos: except printing reports, for me action means modify something | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:32 <Timitos> cedk: yes. that´s right | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:33 <udono> Timitos: the audittrail is another approach, it needs to be plugged on the actions system in tryton and write down every action a user do. BTW. Printing an Report is an auditable action, too. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:33 <cedk> and if we need to store when user print report, it can be done | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:34 <cedk> Timitos: we can add a logger in the service object that store all the calls | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:34 <Timitos> cedk: that sounds great | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:35 <cedk> but I think it will be duplicate with the history objects | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:36 <udono> cedk: but Audittrail is a general mechanism for all actions and history is just a partial mechnism for some tables?! | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:36 <Timitos> cedk: only if the object has the historic attribute or would you define all tables with historic attribute? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:37 <cedk> yes, you are right | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:37 <cedk> is it audit need to store reading action? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:38 <udono> cedk: If the chief like, it is audit to sore when you go make a coffee ;-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:38 <cedk> udono: it needs big harddrives :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:39 <udono> :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:39 <udono> cedk: reading action means that someone open a record? Than yes. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:40 <Timitos> udono: this needs really big harddrives :-) i think audit trail for writing is enough for the beginning. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:40 <cedk> udono: this is easy, but the hard thing is to display to the user | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:41 <Timitos> audit trail for reading should pay a customer if he needs it. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:41 <udono> cedk, just name them like the action is called internal... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:42 <cedk> udono: yes, it is easy to store object, action, args in a table | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:42 <cedk> udono: but it can slow down the system because of many table access | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:43 <udono> cedk: like in the xmlrpc request. The easyest thing will be just to collect the actiondata from the xmlrpc... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:43 <tekknokrat> may i ask a question, how would you control if a view / object uses the historical data, e.g. for invoice reports | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:44 <cedk> udono: that what I think | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:44 <cedk> tekknokrat: I don't understand your question | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:44 <udono> cedk: the price you pay for auditing everything will be speed. I think its ok and normal. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:45 <Timitos> cedk: the admin should be able to set audition to some levels. off, write, write+read | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:46 <udono> tekknokrat: ced proposed a flag like _history= True in the Object. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:46 <Timitos> tekknokrat: example invoice: you have a invoice date. if this is set, then the historic data is used. if it is not set. the actual data is used. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:46 <tekknokrat> udono: ah ok thats what i mean | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:47 <Timitos> tekknokrat: it will be like this: party = fields.Many2One('relationship.party', 'Party', history='invoice_date') | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:48 <tekknokrat> Timitos: ok, will this be a configurable option in general, or only apply to some objects where it fit the business case? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:50 <cedk> tekknokrat: it will depend of the developer, but it will be easy to create module that add history on some objects | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:50 <udono> cedk: back to historical data: I think we dont need timemachine behaviour for the first. Realy needed is the integrity of datachanges over time, because this is a governmental requirement. Maybe we dont need any views about the history in the first implementation. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:51 <tekknokrat> cedk: sounds like a good idea only extending the api a bit and let module-developer decide! | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:51 <cedk> udono: yes, it can be done in two or three steps | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:52 <udono> Timitos: did you know if the invoice template needs to be revisioned, too? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:55 <Timitos> udono: you are right. the invoice template needs to be revisioned too. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:55 <cedk> the template? we already store the invoice in the DB. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:56 <udono> cedk: the compleat pdf? or the data only? | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:56 <Timitos> cedk: yes i forgot. thats enough. | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:56 <cedk> udono: the complet pdf or odt | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:57 <cedk> and know also the format :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:57 <Timitos> the law says, that the records must be hold in an analysable format... | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:57 <Timitos> and the report must be hold in its original | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:57 <udono> cedk: oh, I didnt recognized this :-) | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:58 <Timitos> there ist no demand to do this together | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:59 <Timitos> great discussion today! | ||
| 2008-06-20 15:59 <cedk> udono: by the way, can we start including the german translation ? | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:05 <udono> cedk: Fwiesinger did the translation into the roundup but htgoebel had some changes mentioned. So I would say, just wait. Maybe untill next week on thursday. So everyone may take a look if the translation is ok. I didnt look inside for now. This week is impossible for me, sorry, I have this plone job to do, but maybe next week I will help more. | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:05 <udono> htgoebel=essich | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:06 <udono> afk for short | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:09 <cedk> ok | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:10 <udono> back | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:13 <udono> BTW about translation: I thik around to make the translation process more collaborative. So we all have this google login, we could use google database for the translation tables. A tryton module can import the translations from there. So everyone with a google login could contribute translations... | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:14 <udono> and as a benefit no one of the devels is needed for this to implement translations... | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:17 <udono> ... another possibility is the use of google spreatsheets, than google database... | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:20 <udono> ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWCLROPKug0 | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:33 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:33 -!- kultviech(n=kultviec@p5497632C.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:34 <Timitos> kultviech: hallo | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:34 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:35 <kultviech> hi Timitos | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:44 <udono> kultviech: hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:47 <cedk> udono: I think this is now complicate because it is not in the repository but once it is in the repo, we will work only with patches and it will be easier | ||
| 2008-06-20 16:47 <udono> cedk: yes, the google thing is fo the next year.... | ||
| 2008-06-20 17:04 <tekknokrat> bye, everybody | ||
| 2008-06-20 17:05 <tekknokrat> /quit | ||
| 2008-06-20 17:05 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@port-87-193-170-219.static.qsc.de) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 18:12 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 18:12 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 19:48 -!- FWiesing(n=FWiesing@194.208.185.12) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 19:49 <FWiesing> good evening | ||
| 2008-06-20 19:50 <Timitos> FWiesing: hi | ||
| 2008-06-20 20:07 -!- kultviech(n=kultviec@p5497632C.dip.t-dialin.net) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 21:19 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 21:20 -!- Timitos(n=kp@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 23:36 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@dslb-088-075-236-077.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-06-20 23:37 -!- tekknokrat(n=gthieleb@dslb-088-075-236-077.pools.arcor-ip.net) has left #tryton |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!