| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Sat Jan 24 00:00:01 CET 2009 | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:09 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: hey, I've got two fields I want to equally streach across to fill a line | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:10 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: how would I do that? | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:10 <X0d_of_N0d> I tried to create a group and use fill="1" and expand="1" and that didn't work | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:10 <X0d_of_N0d> and I tried fill="1" on the field... | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:14 <carlos> good night!!! | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:14 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: it is not possible | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:14 <X0d_of_N0d> hum | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:14 <X0d_of_N0d> damn | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:14 <X0d_of_N0d> that sucks | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:14 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: fill attribute is to set the last column to fill | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:15 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: but the client can remember the column size of view | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:15 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: if you enable the option in the form preferences | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:15 <X0d_of_N0d> so I need to set a static column size | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:15 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: or you can set a width to the columns | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:16 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: but I think the best is to let the user decide | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:16 <X0d_of_N0d> user decide? | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:16 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: yes adjusting the size | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:16 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm trying to design a view | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:16 <X0d_of_N0d> how? | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:17 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: in Option>Form>Save Columns width | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:17 <cedk> X0d_of_N0d: I need to go now | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:17 <cedk> bye | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:17 <X0d_of_N0d> cedk: later | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:22 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-71-202-125-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:22 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Hey dude, I think I quite possibly took the longest lunch anyone has ever taken and called "lunch". | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:23 <X0d_of_N0d> lol | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:25 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm fighting with the tryton ui xml stuff for the ldap module | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:25 <X0d_of_N0d> man, coding is so easy... making things look right is such a pain | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:25 <X0d_of_N0d> why can't everything just be commandline | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:26 <vengfulsquirrel> ha have you ever tried to format UI's on the command line | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:26 <vengfulsquirrel> impossible | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:26 <X0d_of_N0d> ever use xdialog? | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:26 <X0d_of_N0d> hehe | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:26 <vengfulsquirrel> Nope | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:26 <X0d_of_N0d> commandline ui | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:26 <vengfulsquirrel> I mainly do web development though | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:27 <vengfulsquirrel> I'm still trying to figure out how everything even works in Tryton. | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:27 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, I really wish Tryton (or more accurately terp) had leveraged a more html style syntax | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:27 <X0d_of_N0d> for hr *use* hr | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:28 <X0d_of_N0d> then, if you need to, extend that | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:28 <X0d_of_N0d> but I guess that's the point of the web client, isn't it... | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:28 <X0d_of_N0d> bah... give me curses | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:30 <ikks_> ncurses rules big time!!!! | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> If I'm in this project long enough I'd definitely want to build an ncurses interface to tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> it would just make sense | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:31 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah html/css kind of sucks though. | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:31 <ikks_> The main problem in curses is utf-89 | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:31 <ikks_> utf-8 | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:31 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> I wonder what the roadmap is for that | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:32 <ikks_> python has a nice curses integration. | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> urxvt supports utf-8 | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:32 <ikks_> I'm using rxvt-unicode | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:32 <ikks_> but I have issues with tabs and accents | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:32 <X0d_of_N0d> python has an OK curses integration... I've never used curses in C so I don't know, but it seems like there are some problems with coding | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:33 <ikks_> encoding in C too :( | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:33 <ikks_> But vim and mutt manages it in a sweet way | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:33 <X0d_of_N0d> I need to start using mutt | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:35 <ikks_> If you plan to use mutt, also look at mairix to find mail. | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:35 <ikks_> ACTION loves mutt | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:36 <X0d_of_N0d> one of my coworkers uses mutt, the other uses muttator on thunderbird | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I'm trying to figure out how to get the system to do the same thing that you can do from the gtk client but via python. | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Completely unrelated to UIs. | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:37 <vengfulsquirrel> ha | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:40 <X0d_of_N0d> I also hate the ui stuff because I'm not really sure how it should look in the first place | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:43 <X0d_of_N0d> ikks_: so there is no gui designer for tryton, right? | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:43 <X0d_of_N0d> ikks_: you just have to edit the xml by hand | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:43 <ikks_> no X0d_of_N0d there isn't | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:43 <ikks_> yep, that's the way | ||
| 2009-01-24 00:52 -!- juanfer(n=juanfer@190.157.120.122) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 01:44 <X0d_of_N0d> is "toolbar" no longer in "tree"? | ||
| 2009-01-24 01:59 <X0d_of_N0d> the caps lock key needs to be striken from the keyboard | ||
| 2009-01-24 02:01 <vengfulsquirrel> definately | ||
| 2009-01-24 02:27 <X0d_of_N0d> brb | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:11 <vengfulsquirrel> X0d_of_N0d: Hey I have some more questions | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:11 <X0d_of_N0d> ok | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:12 <vengfulsquirrel> Oh you are back | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:12 <vengfulsquirrel> So ignoring configurable boms tell me if this sounds alright | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:13 <X0d_of_N0d> ok | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Phantom boms have multiple inputs and have multiple outputs, during the explosion of a bom that references a phantom bom we must merge the inputs and ouputs of the phantom bom. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:13 <vengfulsquirrel> I propose we remove the phantom product from the outputs and push all the phantom bom's outputs into the current outputs. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Also all inputs to the phantom boms will be appeneded to the current inputs list. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:14 <vengfulsquirrel> My major question is how do you think we should handle bringing in phantom products from stock if for example a production order was unfinished? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:14 <X0d_of_N0d> wait... | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:14 <X0d_of_N0d> bom input? you mean bom lines? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:14 <vengfulsquirrel> Sorry so a given bom has a list of inputs and a list of outputs. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:15 <X0d_of_N0d> a bom is a list of products used to produce another product (or, I guess, multiple products) | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:16 <vengfulsquirrel> Yes | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:16 <vengfulsquirrel> So if in that list of products there is a "phantom" subassembly/product then we need to merge it into the current bom at the start of a production so as to not require an additional production order. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:16 <vengfulsquirrel> Since it will be constructed on the production line, right ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:17 <vengfulsquirrel> Ignore workcenters and routings for now. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:17 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, yeah | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:18 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, that is kind of a trick.... | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:18 <X0d_of_N0d> hum... | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:18 <vengfulsquirrel> So would you say bringing in phantom subassemblies from stock is kind of like the concept of WIP ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:18 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:19 <vengfulsquirrel> Or is WIP more of like a partially completed single product. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:19 <vengfulsquirrel> Like a half painted car or something. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:19 <X0d_of_N0d> both | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:19 <vengfulsquirrel> ha damn, well i have no idea how to handle a half painted car | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:20 <vengfulsquirrel> that will have to be added later somehow | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> a half painted car would be taken care of at the workcenter | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:20 <vengfulsquirrel> right but i mean if you had to push it back into storage for some reason | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> I would see it as producing nothing but using half the resources | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> a half painted car.... | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:20 <X0d_of_N0d> hum | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:21 <vengfulsquirrel> oh okay, you mean since the product would already be in production | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:21 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, if you need to stock it again then you need to do something external to the system | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:21 <X0d_of_N0d> we just can't deal with that right now | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:21 <vengfulsquirrel> great because i don't want to | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:21 <vengfulsquirrel> anyways back to phantom boms then | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:21 <X0d_of_N0d> I'm sure with time we could, but it's not a priority | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:21 <vengfulsquirrel> does my problem make sense? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:22 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, but you don't need to care about it until we have workcenters | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:22 <vengfulsquirrel> Or its not a problem its just an unsolved use-case. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:23 <X0d_of_N0d> users would need to manually put in how much stock they're returning. during this time all the phantoms could be listed. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:24 <vengfulsquirrel> You mean when a production goes unfinished? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:24 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:24 <vengfulsquirrel> During assignation I might need to implode parts of the bom to check for phantom products in stock, so maybe I can put a checkbox to do that at the Waiting state. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:25 <vengfulsquirrel> Do you think that would be fare enough ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:25 <vengfulsquirrel> *fair | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:25 <X0d_of_N0d> a checkbox at the waiting state? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:25 <X0d_of_N0d> hum | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:26 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I guess the waiting state is still controversial, but that is where i proposed having an automatic substitute checkbox as well. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:26 <X0d_of_N0d> I feel like states are things that should go into the database..... | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> if it's not going to be saved inbetween draft and assigned then it doesn't need a state there | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:27 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah they are, but they also reflect the user interface possiblities, similar to how you move a sale through multiple states. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> it's a process | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:27 <vengfulsquirrel> It is going to be saved. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> I don't think it should be saved between draft and assigned | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:27 <X0d_of_N0d> if it can't be assigned it shouldn't go into some limbo state | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:28 <X0d_of_N0d> it should go back to draft so you could do something else with it | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:28 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay yeah its hard to explain in words | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:28 <vengfulsquirrel> We need an entire itnerface for manually subsituting things into the bom | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:29 <X0d_of_N0d> if that's going to be a UI thing then that's cool, maybe make a circle instead of a square | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:29 <vengfulsquirrel> So I'm not sure where that would go | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:29 <X0d_of_N0d> it would be a button on the bottom of the interface that would bring up a wizzard | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:29 <X0d_of_N0d> "check for material availablily" or something | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:31 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, that'd be kind of a complex ui thing to code given the current architecture, but I really think it's sort of the right way to do things | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:34 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I just stole it from the packing paradigm of Draft->Waiting->Assigned->Done. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:34 <X0d_of_N0d> hum... | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:34 <X0d_of_N0d> ok | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:35 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah do you think the wizard would be easier for the user? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:35 <X0d_of_N0d> vengfulsquirrel: much... | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:35 <X0d_of_N0d> it would be harder for us to code I think, but easier for the end user | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:35 <X0d_of_N0d> and more logical | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:35 <vengfulsquirrel> because it would seem more maleable ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay, so when I click pay on an invoice and a dialog box pops up that is using wizards right ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:37 <vengfulsquirrel> Whereas I was talking about making a state in a workflow. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:42 -!- X0d_of_N0d(i=user@gateway/tor/x-45f67d87babcf217) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> join #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> hey | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> (18:38:26) X0d_of_N0d: and more logical | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> hum | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> yes | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> hehe | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> ok | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> (18:38:41) vengfulsquirrel: because it would seem more maleable ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> (18:40:07) vengfulsquirrel: Okay, so when I click pay on an invoice and a dialog box pops up that is using wizards right ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <vengfulsquirrel> (18:40:22) vengfulsquirrel: Whereas I was talking about making a state in a workflow. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:43 <X0d_of_N0d> ok | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:44 <X0d_of_N0d> right | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:45 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah except I guess the waiting state in my workflow would become the user using the wizard. | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:46 <vengfulsquirrel> I guess that might make sense | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:46 <X0d_of_N0d> or maybe when you hit save it would check for the materials | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:46 <X0d_of_N0d> and bring up a wizzard | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:46 <X0d_of_N0d> exactly | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:47 <X0d_of_N0d> cool | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:47 <X0d_of_N0d> so, in order to avoid confusion, perhaps it would be wise to make the waiting box a circle or something to show it's different? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah okay well the wizard is going to need multiple states in itself | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> *screens | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:48 <vengfulsquirrel> whatever you want to call it | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:48 <X0d_of_N0d> you're thinking one for each subsitute? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:49 <X0d_of_N0d> well... what would be the screens? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> no, like explode the bom... that can be done at start i think, but then you need to choose if you want to auto allocate or auto pull phantoms | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> so you check whatever | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> and then click | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:49 <vengfulsquirrel> assign | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:50 <X0d_of_N0d> erm...wait | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:50 <X0d_of_N0d> auto allocate? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:50 <vengfulsquirrel> ha sorry so many words, assign | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:50 <vengfulsquirrel> dammit no i mean substitute | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> hehe, yeah | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:51 <vengfulsquirrel> auto-substitute and auto-use-phantoms-from-storage | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> lets just drop subsitution for right now | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:51 <X0d_of_N0d> I really think that should be for a later date | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> later milestone | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:52 <vengfulsquirrel> well then we don't even need a wizard pretty much | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> it's easy to add on later, lets just not worry about it right now | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:52 <X0d_of_N0d> cool | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:53 <vengfulsquirrel> but that seems to work better with my workflow plan | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:53 <X0d_of_N0d> so then we really don't even have a waiting stage for milestone 1 | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:53 <X0d_of_N0d> ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:54 <vengfulsquirrel> actually maybe not | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:54 <vengfulsquirrel> either way | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:54 <X0d_of_N0d> we'll worry about that in a later milestone | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:54 <vengfulsquirrel> if you don't install the substitute module then ... wait no wizard is better | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:55 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah okay so if you do install the substitute module we will make the assign=> button start a wizard | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:55 <vengfulsquirrel> whereas now it will just go straight to assigned or fail | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:55 <X0d_of_N0d> we won't do a substitute module, we'll just add it to the next rev of the mrp module | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:55 <vengfulsquirrel> so we can just ignore it for now because that's how we will integrate it later, which is unobtusive | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:56 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah exactly except i want to make sure it will cleanly fit in later | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:56 <vengfulsquirrel> well sure enough | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:56 <vengfulsquirrel> and that sounds fine ot me | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:56 <X0d_of_N0d> right | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:56 <vengfulsquirrel> *to | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:56 <X0d_of_N0d> cool | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:57 <vengfulsquirrel> wait except the phantom thing, what do you think about that | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:57 <X0d_of_N0d> the phantom thing can't happen until we have WIP, so that's not something we can worry about now | ||
| 2009-01-24 03:57 <X0d_of_N0d> just explode the bom and don't worry about it | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> okay | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> done and done | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:00 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, one more thing | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah i have a bunch more things actually | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:00 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, also "done", in your workflow, doesn't need to be there. Once itmes are done the people who look at workorders don't care if things get moved to storage... | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:00 <vengfulsquirrel> i have to go soon though but go ahead | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> hummm | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> this is quick | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> once you draft the moves the workorder is fulfilled | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:01 <X0d_of_N0d> that's it | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> Hmm | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah someone has to re-stock it right? | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> Having draft moves attached to a finalized thing seems kind of awkward. | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:02 <X0d_of_N0d> right, but the guys who look at workorders don't have to restock it | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:02 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah but the workorders will all be marked done | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> the parent production order just wouldn't be done | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:03 <X0d_of_N0d> hum..... | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> hmm yeah okay i'll look at that | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> Someone asked for that | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:03 <vengfulsquirrel> and it made sense to me | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:04 <X0d_of_N0d> cool | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:04 <X0d_of_N0d> also, I think unfinished should be marked as "canceled" in the db... just imho | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah i think that is right, except maybe unfinished goes to canceled | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> that's the same problem as above though | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:05 <vengfulsquirrel> gotta work out that draft orders thing | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:06 <X0d_of_N0d> right | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> but something that was unfinished will maybe take different outputs | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:06 <X0d_of_N0d> ok | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:06 <X0d_of_N0d> so you said you had some stuff you need? | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah crap where do i write all this down though | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> i wish the mrp document had like an associated scratch pad | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:06 <vengfulsquirrel> i guess it'll be in the log | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:07 <vengfulsquirrel> i'll review it tomorrow, yeah my problem is | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:07 <vengfulsquirrel> for the configurable bom | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:08 <vengfulsquirrel> i was thinking you could associate a list of by-products with each configurable bom input and those would be thrown into the outputs when those bom lines were selected | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:09 <vengfulsquirrel> Actually here is a simpler solution | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:09 <X0d_of_N0d> hum | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:09 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah, ok | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:09 <vengfulsquirrel> A configurable bom has a list of by-product outputs(independent of any configuration) and once the bom is configured all the outputs can be added or removed. | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:10 <X0d_of_N0d> ACTION doesn't think configurable boms should have multiple outputs | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:10 <vengfulsquirrel> The system will still work just for weird configurable boms that might make differing by-products you'll have a hard time configuring tons of them. | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:10 <X0d_of_N0d> a configurable bom should be a list of components that are purchased or manufactured | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:11 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah, but what about the outputs? There will probably be by-products, at least, right ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:11 <X0d_of_N0d> by products should only be produced during the manufacturing of components from raw materials | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:11 <vengfulsquirrel> oh | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:11 <vengfulsquirrel> i see | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:12 <vengfulsquirrel> okay so single output then you think ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:12 <X0d_of_N0d> as far as I'm concerned if you have a configurable bom with by-products you'd put that in a normal bom, then put the normal bom in a configurable bom | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:12 <X0d_of_N0d> so yeah | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:13 <vengfulsquirrel> Okay yeah sorry if I'm off sometimes, I'm kind of fighting thin air | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:13 <vengfulsquirrel> So that sounds great because it super simplifies everything | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:14 <vengfulsquirrel> you can't make more than one output and that output is chosen when configuring the configurable bom. | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:14 <X0d_of_N0d> cool | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:15 <vengfulsquirrel> i think phantom boms could probably still work correctly in that situation | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:15 <X0d_of_N0d> right... except potential multiple outputs made by children of the configurable bom | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:15 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah but that's fine we don't deal with that until production line time | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:16 <vengfulsquirrel> hopefully that makes sense | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:17 <X0d_of_N0d> yeah | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> okay great so i think i'm ready soon to start breaking ground | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:18 <X0d_of_N0d> sweet | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> or at least make way more detailed designs | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> maybe start talking about the db and stuff | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:18 <vengfulsquirrel> gotta run for now though | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:19 <vengfulsquirrel> thanks for the help, i'll talk to you next week | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:19 <X0d_of_N0d> ok, talk to you monday probably | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:19 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah sounds good | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:19 <vengfulsquirrel> later | ||
| 2009-01-24 04:19 <X0d_of_N0d> np, later | ||
| 2009-01-24 05:20 -!- yangoon(n=mathiasb@p549F5C6D.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 05:36 -!- ikks(n=igor@190.12.153.202) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 07:35 -!- Frank159_(n=chatzill@pD9E63563.dip.t-dialin.net) has left #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 08:48 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 09:05 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 09:09 -!- Gedd(n=ged@77.109.114.26.adsl.dyn.edpnet.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 09:21 -!- enlightx(n=enlightx@host-84-221-85-222.cust-adsl.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 09:41 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-768acd54bec2b78c) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 12:22 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 12:38 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 12:46 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 13:38 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 16:49 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-26b20177a2f7d72b) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 16:50 -!- cristi_an(i=5978d3ce@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-b41c644d4aa8cf97) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:35 <CIA-8> tryton: matb roundup * #697/Sort order of almost all tables under Administration doesn't respect translation: [chatting] The issue is partiallly solved. There are 2 remaining issues: 1) As you can see on search_inv.png, untranslated items (name Invoice) ... | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:37 <yangoon> cedk: are you around? | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:42 <cedk> yangoon: yes | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:43 <yangoon> cedk: I need a little help getting report overrides working | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:44 <yangoon> cedk: I don't understand exactly, what I have to do for https://bugs.tryton.org/roundup/issue657 | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:44 <cedk> yangoon: you must make like a new report | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:45 <yangoon> cedk: but is it enough to define in xml? | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:45 <cedk> yangoon: yes | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:46 <yangoon> cedk: then it just doesn't work for me in respect to https://bugs.tryton.org/roundup/issue657 | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:47 <yangoon> cedk: because src strings of report, that overrides, are still shown belonging to module, that is overridden | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:47 <cedk> yangoon: you must not override | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:48 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.86.139) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:55 <yangoon> cedk: just tried again with invoice.xml like http://paste.pocoo.org/show/101145/ | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:56 <yangoon> doesn't work | ||
| 2009-01-24 17:58 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 18:00 <cedk> yangoon: this is because you override and not create a new one | ||
| 2009-01-24 18:11 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.86.139) has left #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 18:11 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.86.139) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 19:48 <CIA-8> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 1482:83a97e60fcc8 trytond/trytond/osv/orm.py: Add missing fuzzy test in _where_calc and _order_calc for issue697 | ||
| 2009-01-24 19:48 <CIA-8> tryton: ced roundup * #697/Sort order of almost all tables under Administration doesn't respect translation: [resolved] Fix with changeset 83a97e60fcc8 | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:09 <yangoon> cedk I think I got it now, but there is one thing | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:09 <yangoon> cedk: the print wizard for invoice has to find the internal name 'account.invoice' | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:10 <yangoon> cedk: so this field has to be the same for the new report | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:10 <yangoon> cedk: but there is a unique key on this field preventing the import of a second definition with this internal name | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:11 <yangoon> cedk: removing the unique key makes it work for me | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:14 <cedk> yangoon: ok, I will remove it | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:19 <yangoon> cedk: ok, thx, it is ir_action_report_report_name_uniq UNIQUE(report_name) | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:38 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-71-202-125-182.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 20:53 -!- carlos(n=carlos@248.Red-83-39-84.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:01 <CIA-8> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 1483:2c02e7aa0f5b trytond/trytond/sql_db.py: Add drop_constraint | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:01 <CIA-8> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 1484:61c4f969bc09 trytond/trytond/ir/action.py: Remove report_name_uniq constraint on ir.action.report | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:24 <cedk> yangoon: done | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:24 <yangoon> yes, great | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:28 <CIA-8> tryton: C?dric Krier <ced@b2ck.com> default * 172:5439ae892af4 gentoo-overlay/dev-python/relatorio/ (Manifest relatorio-0.5.0.ebuild): Version bump | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:31 -!- gremly(n=oscar@190.156.157.155) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:52 <yangoon> cedk: if I want to set the old report to inactive I get always: WARNING:init:Field active of 293@ir.action.report not updated (id: report_invoice), because it has changed since the last update | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:52 <yangoon> cedk: which way do I have to go, if I want to disable the old report? | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:53 <bechamel> yangoon: this mean that the record in the db is not the same that was imported the first time, i.e. it was changed by a user | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:53 <bechamel> yangoon: and the code that import xml try to not overwrite user modifications | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:54 <bechamel> yangoon: the easiest think to do is just to remove the record (has long as there is not other records poiting to it), and update all | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:54 <yangoon> bechamel: I tried to remove all write_date and write_uid manually from the records, nevertheless the same message | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:55 <yangoon> bechamel: from what does tryton decide, if a record has changed? | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:55 <bechamel> yangoon: it's not enouhg the imported values are stored in a table (ir_model_data) | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:55 <yangoon> ok, thx! | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:55 <bechamel> yangoon: if the actual record is not the same that the corresponding values in this table the record is not updated | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:56 <yangoon> bechamel: so what do I have to do, it always possible that a user has changed the record | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:56 <bechamel> yangoon: I never tried to remove records directly in ir_model_data but it should work | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:56 <bechamel> yangoon: ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:57 <yangoon> bechamel: if I want to set the old report to inactive | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:58 <bechamel> yangoon: I think you cannot set the record to inactive because it was modified in the meanwhile with your tests | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:58 <yangoon> bechamel: yes, that's it | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:59 <bechamel> yangoon: but it should work | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:59 <yangoon> bechamel: but this can happen always | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:59 <yangoon> bechamel: provided the case, a user gets a module later and he has already worked on those records | ||
| 2009-01-24 21:59 <bechamel> yangoon: yes, the best is not to change data "by hand" on thedb | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:00 <yangoon> bechamel: how can I | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:00 <bechamel> yangoon: in this case you only want to put active on an existing record | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:00 <yangoon> sorry, provide on a first time import of the new module | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:00 <yangoon> yes, ecactly | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:01 <yangoon> sorry, relly slow on the keyboard today... | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:01 <bechamel> yangoon: so just add a record with active false on the xml of your custom module, I think there is an example like that somewhere, let me chack | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:03 <bechamel> yangoon: look this: http://hg.tryton.org/hgwebdir.cgi/modules/stock/file/19568e8d5cb8/stock.xml#l21 | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:03 <yangoon> bechamel: many thx | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:03 <bechamel> yangoon: and: http://pastebin.com/m765be16d | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:04 <bechamel> yangoon: it's actualy the opposite of what you want, the original record is set with active="0" | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:04 <bechamel> yangoon: and the xml snippet "activate" the record | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:05 <yangoon> bechamel: yes I see, trying at once | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:09 <bechamel> yangoon: take care of the id of the record it's important to give the id of the record you want to overwrite prefixed with the name of the module it comes from. | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:09 <yangoon> bechamel: yes, just ran into the trap | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:09 <yangoon> bechamel: ;) | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:12 <yangoon> bechamel: I now have http://pastebin.com/m64fc310 | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:13 <yangoon> bechamel: but get always the same warning | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:13 <yangoon> do I work on the wrong table? | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:14 <bechamel> yangoon: the warning is "not updated ... because it has changed since the last update" ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:14 <yangoon> bechamel: yes | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:15 <bechamel> yangoon: I will test here | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:15 <yangoon> bechamel: ok, thx | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:18 <bechamel> yangoon: i have the same error :) i don't remember how the code i gave you work correctly | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:18 <yangoon> bechamel: puuh:) | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:28 -!- oversize(n=manuel@94.219.105.90) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:32 <yangoon> bechamel: I think, there is also a bug in updating timestamps in ir_model_data | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:32 <yangoon> bechamel: when I am updating account_invoice, ir_model_data.write_date and ir_model_data.date_update are set to the actual date | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:33 <yangoon> bechamel: when I am updating my custom module with the new report, the dates are not updated | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:33 <bechamel> yangoon: and what is the bug ? you mean that the timestamps shouldn't be changed ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:34 <yangoon> bechamel: don't know, either it should be changed in both cases or in none | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:34 <yangoon> bechamel: and always ir_model_data.write_date < ir_model_data.date_update | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:35 <yangoon> bechamel: so I don't know, how tryton evaluates "...changes since the last update..." | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:36 <bechamel> yangoon: date_update is not used actualy ... | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:36 <yangoon> bechamel: perhaps just evaluating write_date not null? | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:36 <yangoon> bechamel: ok | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:41 <bechamel> yangoon: i don't see how the xml I gave you works, it's crazy how am i able to forget this kind of stuff | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:41 <yangoon> bechamel: :D | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:41 <yangoon> bechamel: and I get still the warning after deleting the records from ir_model_data | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:42 <bechamel> yangoon: yesn and it's the normal behaviour | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:42 <yangoon> bechamel: seems to me, that it probably should work, but that some bug was introduced meanwhile | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:46 <bechamel> yangoon: No it's working, but i don't how | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:53 <yangoon> bechamel: thx anyway, have to eat sth. now, cu later | ||
| 2009-01-24 22:57 -!- ikks(i=igor@190.102.215.179) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:28 <vengfulsquirrel> Does anyone think someone would want to use BOMs only without any sort of production order process ? Maybe for some sort of accounting purpose? | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:33 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: it may be useful if the 'production' is very light or made in front of customers , like in a restaurant or a gift shop (to wrap object in paper), ... | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:34 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: or maybe for promotion, "free mouse if you buy the laptop" (the package is a product by itself) | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:35 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: but i'm not shure if it must be handled with bom | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:35 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah that's a different idea, although that one is useful | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:36 <vengfulsquirrel> that's more of a like a product kit | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:37 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: yes a kit. I think it's managed with bom in openerp | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:38 <vengfulsquirrel> Yeah I think that's a little weird because its like a marketing idea. | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:40 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: it you only manage sale and purchase, a bom is not necessary. But inventory stuff need to which are real products in the kit | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:41 <bechamel> sorry: ... need to _know_ which ... | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:44 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah seems like that would be a modification between the sale and the packing generation | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:45 -!- igor__(i=igor@190.102.205.198) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:47 <vengfulsquirrel> I was thinking about putting simple BOMs, production orders and simple production order processing into the same module. | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:49 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: you plan to have distincts object production orders (simple and not simple) ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:49 <vengfulsquirrel> What do you mean ? | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:50 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: ok I misread, i did not see the "processing" word | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:51 <vengfulsquirrel> Oh right by that I just mean no shop floor control, it just helps you handle your stock. | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:53 <bechamel> vengfulsquirrel: yes and this module should be easily extendable to handle more complex cases | ||
| 2009-01-24 23:55 <vengfulsquirrel> yeah hopefully, i'm kind of worried about some things not extending very well but we have to start somewhere |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!