| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Fri Aug 19 00:00:02 CEST 2011 | ||
| 2011-08-19 01:11 -!- ikks_(~ikks@190.25.172.191) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 02:50 -!- meanmicio(~lfm@190.195.50.15) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 03:36 -!- elbenfreund1(~elbenfreu@p54B9299F.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 03:44 -!- sebamarro(~sebastian@190.173.162.185) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 04:53 -!- alimon(alimon@189.154.55.187) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 04:59 -!- plantian(~ian@c-67-169-72-36.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 06:48 -!- smarro_(~sebastian@190.51.101.48) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 07:00 -!- helmor(~helmo@2.209.191.193) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 07:36 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 07:37 -!- okko1(~okko@dhcp-077-251-140-095.chello.nl) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 08:21 -!- hoRn(~jan@dslb-178-005-199-147.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 08:57 -!- pjstevns(~pjstevns@helpoort.xs4all.nl) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 08:57 -!- pjstevns(~pjstevns@helpoort.xs4all.nl) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:17 -!- helmor(~helmo@109.250.168.233) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:25 -!- nicoe(~nicoe@ced.homedns.org) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:28 -!- pjstevns(~pjstevns@a83-163-46-103.adsl.xs4all.nl) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:28 -!- jcm(~jcm@99.12.194.77.rev.sfr.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:30 -!- vladimirek(~vladimire@adsl-dyn18.91-127-76.t-com.sk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:41 -!- helmor(~helmo@46.115.26.7) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:45 -!- okko1(~okko@62.58.29.41) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:49 -!- enlightx(~enlightx@static-217-133-61-144.clienti.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 09:56 -!- bechamel(~user@cismwks02-virtual1.cism.ucl.ac.be) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 10:12 -!- reichlich(~reichlich@p578E8BC7.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 10:34 -!- ccomb(~ccomb@vau75-2-81-57-244-84.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 11:10 -!- helmor(~helmo@109.250.44.168) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 11:13 -!- reichlich_(~reichlich@p578E8F27.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 11:35 -!- ccomb(~ccomb@anj75-1-82-226-210-96.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:27 -!- ndn_pit(~ndn_pit@95.56.33.246) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:28 <ndn_pit> where should I pass URL like "tryton://<hostname>[:<port>]/<database>/model/<model name>[/<id>][;parameters]"? | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:28 <ndn_pit> hello :) | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:29 <cedk> ndn_pit: as argument of the tryton client | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:30 <ndn_pit> can you give me example? | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:31 <nicoe> ./bin/tryton tryton://localhost/demo/party.party/1 | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:31 <ndn_pit> thank you | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:32 <cedk> ndn_pit: ./bin/tryton tryton://demo2.0.tryton.org/demo2.0/model/party.party | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:32 <cedk> ndn_pit: it works on the demo server | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:32 <ndn_pit> understand | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:33 <ndn_pit> understood thanks | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:37 <ndn_pit> if I should pass it from my external softphone, then why should I specify db? | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:39 <ndn_pit> i mean: db name may be chage sometimes | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:39 <ndn_pit> change* | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:39 <nicoe> tryton supports more then one database, you should tell him which db to use | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:39 <cedk> ndn_pit: the database name is in the URL | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:40 <ndn_pit> "ndn_pit: the database name is in the URL" it's exactly what i don't want ) | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:41 <ndn_pit> I think it's impossible, am i right? | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:41 <cedk> ndn_pit: it is impossible because it really depends on the database name | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:42 <ndn_pit> ok thanks | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:42 <cedk> ndn_pit: let say you want to open the Party form of the calling number, the id of the Party is linked to the database | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:42 <ndn_pit> yes | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:43 <ndn_pit> but my db name can change in the future | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:43 <ndn_pit> but clients count may be 100 | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:43 <ndn_pit> i mean operator count | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:44 <nicoe> why would your db name change ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:45 <ndn_pit> I never know what will happen | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:46 <cedk> ndn_pit: I really don't see why you will change the name of the database | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:46 <cedk> ndn_pit: it is like the hostname of the server | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:48 <ndn_pit> ok may be I wrong, I just want to consider all situations | ||
| 2011-08-19 12:51 -!- ndn_pit(~ndn_pit@95.56.33.246) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 13:23 -!- vladimirek(~vladimire@adsl-dyn18.91-127-76.t-com.sk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 13:29 <hoRn> can anyone have a look if I'm trying to do impossible things or I am stupid - don't find a useful pysonstatement for this problem. finally is _parent_parent - or its broken by design http://pastie.org/2396236 | ||
| 2011-08-19 13:38 <hoRn> I am stupid | ||
| 2011-08-19 13:47 -!- hoRn(~jan@dslb-178-005-199-147.pools.arcor-ip.net) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 14:04 -!- jcm(~jcm@99.12.194.77.rev.sfr.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 15:30 -!- sharkcz(~sharkcz@2001:15c0:6747:160::7) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 15:37 -!- smarro_(~sebastian@186.140.46.202) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 15:38 -!- sisalp(~dominique@annecy.sisalp.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 15:46 -!- nicoe(~nicoe@ced.homedns.org) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 15:48 -!- ccomb(~ccomb@anj75-1-82-226-210-96.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 15:53 -!- sisalp(~dominique@annecy.sisalp.net) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 15:57 -!- saxa(~sasa@189.26.255.43) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 16:01 -!- enlightx(~enlightx@static-217-133-61-144.clienti.tiscali.it) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 16:10 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 16:20 -!- bvillasanti(~bvillasan@190.105.104.98) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 16:28 -!- alimon(alimon@189.154.55.187) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 16:29 -!- gremly(~gremly@200.106.218.64) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 16:31 -!- bvillasanti(~bvillasan@190.105.104.98) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:10 -!- pjstevns(~pjstevns@a83-163-46-103.adsl.xs4all.nl) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:35 -!- redarmy(~Miranda@180.113.221.97) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:36 <redarmy> is email integration ready? just see someone chat it in the irclog. | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:39 -!- dfamorato(~dfamorato@2001:470:5:630:7815:60cb:36a6:d75b) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:39 -!- sharoon(~sharoon@204-232-205-248.static.cloud-ips.com) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:39 <dfamorato> bechamel: ping | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:41 <bechamel> dfamorato: ping | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:41 <dfamorato> bechamel: pong | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:41 <bechamel> *pong :) | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:41 <dfamorato> bechamel: Hi there ... | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:41 <dfamorato> bechamel: | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:41 <nicoe> redarmy: no email integration. I hope discuss it at the unconference and maybe have some poc later | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:41 <bechamel> dfamorato: Hi | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:41 <dfamorato> bechamel: I see you had time to do some review on my code | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:42 <bechamel> dfamorato: yes | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:42 <dfamorato> bechamel: A lot of code is spent on building the correct config... because this is crucial | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:42 <bechamel> dfamorato: yes I know | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:43 <dfamorato> bechamel: but then, my intention is to have a cron which will add and remove records to the index | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:43 <dfamorato> bechamel: any id's changed on the tryton side are stored to be added / removed from sphinx side | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:44 <bechamel> dfamorato: but it as several drawback, the main one being supporting all type of field | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:44 <bechamel> dfamorato: example, what append if I want to search invoices for customer "Doe" | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:44 <dfamorato> bechamel: sorry, i don't understand what is the drawback | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:45 <dfamorato> bechamel: No problem, we index all fields | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:45 <bechamel> dfamorato: what about many2one ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:45 <bechamel> or even {many,one}2many | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:46 <dfamorato> bechamel: many to one takes as attrtibues.... | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:47 <dfamorato> bechamel: My code takes in consideration the function fields and so on.... | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:47 <dfamorato> bechamel: Based on the context of the user | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:47 <bechamel> dfamorato: let me check | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:48 <dfamorato> bechamel: so.. in order to index trasnlation, we would have to create a user for each installed language... | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:48 <dfamorato> bechamel: and set the language per user | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:49 <dfamorato> bechamel: Here is the thing..... I implemented addition functionality over my past code... So i din't start from scratch, I just added the XML Pipe functionality | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:49 -!- okko1(~okko@dhcp-077-251-140-095.chello.nl) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:49 <dfamorato> bechamel: That's why you see SQL and XML there | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:50 <bechamel> dfamorato: where function fields are hanled ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:50 <dfamorato> bechamel: let me open it and i will let you knwo | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:52 <dfamorato> bechamel: https://github.com/dfamorato/tryton_sphinx/blob/experimental/bin/xmlpipe2_trytond#L44 | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:54 <dfamorato> bechamel: above it gets the user context | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:54 <dfamorato> bechamel: and here i get all fields available to this user https://github.com/dfamorato/tryton_sphinx/blob/experimental/api/utils.py#L109 | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:55 <bechamel> dfamorato: yes but guess_type only handles date, integer, string, float and boolean | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:56 <bechamel> dfamorato: it miss function fields and relation fields | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:58 <dfamorato> bechamel: i think you are right.... | ||
| 2011-08-19 17:59 <dfamorato> bechamel: but here is what i think it can be done | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:00 <dfamorato> bechamel: In my understanding, function fields will get a computed value bases on the context of the user and return a know variable type... like a float, numeric, integer and so on... | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:00 <bechamel> dfamorato: yes | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:00 <dfamorato> bechamel: so, what if i check if isinstance(field, Function): and then return guess_xml_type(field._field) | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:01 <dfamorato> bechamel: I think that would work | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:01 <bechamel> dfamorato: yes and many2one must be also easy | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:02 <dfamorato> bechamel: any ideas to help me on that ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:02 <bechamel> dfamorato: but for them you must index getattr(record, field).rec_name | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:02 <bechamel> instead of getattr(record, field) | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:03 <bechamel> and it's basically a string | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:03 <bechamel> dfamorato: *2many are also doable but I dont know if it's supported by sphinx | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:04 <dfamorato> bechamel: You mean index .rec_name on the "Char, Text, Selection" fields right ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:05 <dfamorato> bechamel: I think they are not --> http://sphinxsearch.com/docs/2.0.1/xmlpipe2.html | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:05 <bechamel> dfamorato: let's say I want to index invoice | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:05 <bechamel> invoice.amount is a float | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:06 <bechamel> but invoice.cutomer is an object | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:07 <bechamel> so to index it we want to push invoice.customer.rec_name, which is exactly what is shown in the gtk client when an invoice is opened | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:07 <dfamorato> bechamel: ok, i get it | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:08 <bechamel> so for *2many, from a tryton perspective we could do a loop on the related record | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:09 <bechamel> for rec in invoice.lines: stream.write("..." % (..., rec.rec_name,)) | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:11 <bechamel> but I don't know if sphinx can index a variable list of text for a same record | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:11 <bechamel> dfamorato: ^ | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:13 <bechamel> and in my example (and after reading the acount_invoice code), the rec_name of invoice_line is (most of the time) the product name | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:13 <dfamorato> bechamel: Ok... i am trying to assimilate it | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:14 <dfamorato> bechamel: I can understand for the function fields... | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:14 <bechamel> so if we are able to index *2many this way, it means it become possible to search for invoice based on product name | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:15 <dfamorato> bechamel: but the many2one and *2many i think might be beyond the scope of what i understood on the full text search | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:15 <dfamorato> bechamel: you want to be able to do a full text even in records internal lines ? Like each invoice line ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:16 <dfamorato> bechamel: I completely understand the need to search on invoice.amount and invoice.customer | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:16 <dfamorato> bechamel: but invoice lines ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:18 <bechamel> dfamorato: I agree with you if I think in a techincal point of view it | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:19 <dfamorato> bechamel: And I also think that would make sphinx DB grow exponatially..... because we would have almost a "copy" of our sphinx db | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:19 <bechamel> but for a user, when e see a document he does not care/know that data that are shown together are coming from separate table | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:21 <bechamel> or let's put in another way: when I search google I want to query text from blog post but also from comments linked to (and shown with) the blog posts | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:22 <dfamorato> bechamel: And in a sense... taking OE for example... you can see all sales associated with that particular product... and that is independent of search, so I really don't think this should be implemented through sphinx ... | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:24 -!- bvillasanti(~bvillasan@190.105.89.122) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:24 <dfamorato> bechamel: I think this relation should be done on the model itself.... Which is a feature I currently miss.... and like I said.. sphinx can be about 70% of the size of the original data source, so I don't have good feelings about indexing this data on sphinx | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:24 <bechamel> dfamorato: maybe indexing all *2many will create to much data | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:24 <dfamorato> bechamel: I am postive that it will create to much data. | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:25 <bechamel> this can be handled later with a custom method that allow to push extra stuff | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:25 <bechamel> but let's concentrate on other stuff before | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:26 <dfamorato> bechamel: yes... i agree... that can be done in an "advance sphinx integration" module if there is really a demand for that data | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:27 <dfamorato> bechamel: but one thing i will do it because i missed it... implement the function field guessing using: if isinstance(field, Function): | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:28 <bechamel> dfamorato: yes handling function field and many2one is easy | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:29 <dfamorato> bechamel: great.. i will implement that and push to code review... | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:29 <bechamel> dfamorato: and btw getattr(record, field) can be replace with record[field], as __getitem__ is implemented on browse records | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:29 <dfamorato> bechamel: is it faster ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:30 <cedk> bechamel: I'm not sure to understand why you want to index many2one and many2many? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:30 <bechamel> dfamorato: no it does change anything except code readability | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:30 <bechamel> *does not | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:30 <bechamel> cedk: because i want to search invoice per customer | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:31 <cedk> bechamel: now you can already do that | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:31 <bechamel> cedk: I can already do this with all other fields | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:32 <cedk> bechamel: also with Many2One and Many2Many | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:33 <cedk> bechamel: you can do: invoice_obj.search([('party', 'ilike', 'Foo%')]) | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:34 <bechamel> cedk: but I can search for every field without sphinx | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:34 <bechamel> cedk: if we index char and int and float, why not indexing m2o ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:35 <cedk> bechamel: the goals of sphinx is to do fulltext search | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:35 <cedk> bechamel: otherwise we got index in the database | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:36 <bechamel> cedk: to you want to index only field.Text | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:36 <cedk> bechamel: I don't see any advantage for others | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:37 <bechamel> cedk: and wat if i want invoice_obj.search([('party', 'ilike', '%Foo%')]) ? It's an easy query for sphinx but it is a full scan for postgresql | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:39 <bechamel> another point is: I saw several people reaction like "full text search is cool, I imagine I can search for 'Foo' and it will give me all the sale/invoice/case/... associated to Foo" | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:40 <cedk> bechamel: for the search: just query sphinx to get parties that match and make a join in invoice table | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:40 <cedk> bechamel: second, I don't think it is really useful to search for anything | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:41 <cedk> bechamel: I think a business software needs semantic | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:42 <bechamel> this brings me to another point that I forgot, instead of defining precise index for each model in sphinx, what about defining just (id= int, model=string, data=string) and then create a text blob that merge all the text of the current record and make sphinx index it as one text | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:45 <cedk> bechamel: I will create an entry for each data instead of merging all | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:45 <cedk> bechamel: but the question is can we filter on data and model ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:47 <bechamel> cedk: "search -c sphinx.conf -i product_template iphone" | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:47 <bechamel> it comes from the README.md | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:47 <bechamel> "I will create an entry for each data instead of merging all" -> ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:49 <cedk> bechamel: instead of mergin all the text, I will create an entry for each text | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:49 <cedk> bechamel: so we will have (id=int, model=string, field=sting, data=string) | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:50 <bechamel> cedk: no | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:51 <bechamel> cedk: all the content of all the fields will be merged into data | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:51 <cedk> bechamel: why? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:51 <cedk> bechamel: better to have what I said, because you will be able to search on specific field value or not | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:51 <bechamel> cedk: one unique schema in sphinx, so no need to update it when new modules are installed | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:52 <cedk> bechamel: it is uniq schema | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:52 <bechamel> cedk: I don't know how sphinx would handle that | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:53 <bechamel> dfamorato: any idea ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:53 <cedk> bechamel: if it can handle you schema why not mine? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:54 <dfamorato> sorry guys, can you please make a clear question for me ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:54 <cedk> dfamorato: what is allowed as schema for an index? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:56 <dfamorato> cedk: I still don't understand you .. you want to what data can be indexed ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:57 <cedk> dfamorato: what is allowed as schema? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:57 <dfamorato> cedk: here is the a good example of how the xml must be formated in order to be indexed http://sphinxsearch.com/docs/2.0.1/xmlpipe2.html | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:57 <cedk> dfamorato: how many fields? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:57 <dfamorato> cedk: No limit in fields... as long as they are less then 2 MB | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:57 <cedk> dfamorato: ok | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:58 <cedk> dfamorato: can you filter on any field? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:58 <dfamorato> cedk: you can filter on attribute fields (which in our case is anything that is not text) | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:59 <cedk> dfamorato: must the id be integer? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:59 <bechamel> is it possible to do something like "search -c sphinx.conf -i product_template name:iphone" to restrict the query to the name attribute ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 18:59 <dfamorato> cedk: Yes, must be an unique integer, there is no workarround on that | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:00 <cedk> dfamorato: sheet | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:00 <bechamel> cedk: sheet ? :D | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:00 <cedk> bechamel: typo | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:00 <cedk> bechamel: it is not possible to do what you want nor mine | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:01 <dfamorato> bechamel: is is possible to restrict bases on the index you are search for sure... I think is pretty possible to restric attribute..... let me confirm | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:01 <cedk> bechamel: because id must be int so we must have a index per model | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:02 <bechamel> what about the product_template in the example, this means that the document type is handled | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:03 <dfamorato> bechamel: it is possible to set filter based on attribute --> http://sphinxsearch.com/docs/2.0.1/matching-modes.html | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:03 <cedk> bechamel: it is the index name | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:04 <dfamorato> i used model name = to index name | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:05 <bechamel> found this: "hello world" @title "example program" | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:06 <bechamel> which does full text search on "hello world" and also filter for "example program" in the title attribute | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:06 <dfamorato> bechamel: yes... it's possible as well... field search operator: @title hello @body world | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:07 <dfamorato> or maybe multiple-field search operator: @(title,body) hello world | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:07 <dfamorato> there are a lot of possible possible syntaxes = http://sphinxsearch.com/docs/2.0.1/extended-syntax.html | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:09 <bechamel> oh and btw, we shouldn't restrict indexing to the fields with select=1, but index everytinh | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:10 <bechamel> I have to leave, see you later | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:17 <cedk> dfamorato: do you think it is possible to store all data into 1 index? | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:18 <cedk> dfamorato: like bechamel said | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:18 <cedk> for me it is not possible because id must be unique and integer | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:18 <dfamorato> cedk: i don't think it is and i don | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:18 <dfamorato> i also don't see the benefit | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:19 <dfamorato> cedk: we don't need to specify which index to search... we can just search accross all of them | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:22 <cedk> dfamorato: and how does it manage different schema when searching accross indexes? | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:23 <dfamorato> cedk: you mean filtering through a schema attributes or just plain search... | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:24 <dfamorato> cedk: if it's plain search, it look for the "field" in the schema and tries to match it... now if we are setting a filter based on the attribues, i am not sure how it's going to work | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:25 <cedk> dfamorato: the other disavantage of having one index per model is that you must define it in the configuration file which need to be updated when installing new module in Tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:26 <dfamorato> cedk: i don't see that as a big drawback, since there is a | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:26 <dfamorato> cedk: "sphinx conf generator" | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:27 <cedk> dfamorato: but it doesn't keep custom change you did in the configuration | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:27 <dfamorato> cedk: In, as i see it.... people shouldn't be installing modules out of nowhere...... | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:27 <cedk> dfamorato: and by default, generated configuration is bad | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:27 <dfamorato> cedk: maybe i can have the conf build "update" a configuration if one exists.. | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:28 <dfamorato> cedk: the only thing i need to to is echo a new source and index into that configuration is a news module is added | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:29 <cedk> dfamorato: yes but the only reason to have many indexes it is because id must be integer | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:31 <dfamorato> cedk: well, also another good reason is to search ONLY on a specific index when you want... or rebuildind a specific index from scratch if needed in any case | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:32 <dfamorato> cedk: I know that searching in a specific index can be solved if we use a field telling the model name... but i don't see any drawback of using multiple indexes... i only see advandatges | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:33 <dfamorato> cedk: which also includes distributed search, since we can have indexes in other machines | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:36 <cedk> dfamorato: can you create index on the fly? | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:36 <dfamorato> yep | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:37 <dfamorato> cedk: after you put it into sphinx.conf just run indexer -i index_name... the data will be indexed | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:38 <cedk> dfamorato: without puting it in conf | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:39 -!- smarro_(~sebastian@host100.190-136-175.telecom.net.ar) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:43 <dfamorato> cant't be done | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:45 -!- jcm(~jcm@99.12.194.77.rev.sfr.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:45 -!- bechamel(~user@host-85-201-144-79.brutele.be) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:46 <dfamorato> cedk: I am starving... any further questions before i leave for lunch ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:46 <bechamel> cedk: another remark, it should be nice to provide auto-completion on each field value in the new search widget | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:47 <bechamel> cedk: so "name:bertra", will trigger a sphinx search on the name field and suggest bertrand | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:47 <bechamel> dfamorato: I have another question :) | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:47 <dfamorato> bechamel: sure | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:47 <bechamel> dfamorato: the xmlpipe doc talk about "arbitrary full-text and attribute data" | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:48 <bechamel> dfamorato: is the per-model schema needed when we use only xmlpipe to index stuff ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:48 <dfamorato> bechamel: if you send data that is not declared on the xml schema, the additional data will not be considered | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:49 <dfamorato> bechamel: yes... per model schema is needed because we don't define it on sphinx.conf.... so we do need to do it on the xml stream | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:50 <bechamel> dfamorato: it says "It also allows to specify the schema (ie. the set of fields and attributes) either in the XML stream itself, or in the source settings" | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:50 -!- peju(~moore@196.200.64.46) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:51 -!- peju(~moore@196.200.64.46) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:52 <dfamorato> bechamel: just like i said... you can either use sphinx.conf or the xml stream.... i prefered to use the xml stream because it's easier to update the indexed fields without the need to update the conf file | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:52 <bechamel> dfamorato: not having to re-generate config when modules are installed would be really nice | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:52 <bechamel> dfamorato: the easier to use, the best it is | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:52 <dfamorato> bechamel: i told cedk that i could just echo the new source and index settings into the conf file in case a conf file exists | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:53 <dfamorato> bechamel: so, that way, the conf file would always maintain any customization made to it | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:55 <dfamorato> bechamel: now my question to you guys is.... Is it possible for me to inherit the "module installation/upgrade" process and add an addition step to it which would call my sphinx-conf-updater each time a new module is installed | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:56 <dfamorato> bechamel: because if that is possible, I think i makes it "fool-proof" enought :) | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:58 <bechamel> dfamorato: I don't think this part of the code support inheritance/extension, but if we hare happy with the fulltext search we can integrate it on the base code and allow is usage based on the config file | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:58 <dfamorato> bechamel: awesome... | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:58 -!- peju(~moore@196.200.64.46) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:58 <peju> hi all | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:58 <bechamel> dfamorato: IMO you shouldn't bother too much on integration with the base, we can do it later | ||
| 2011-08-19 19:59 <dfamorato> bechamel: I was just tryting to find a solution for you requests about the "new module" scenario | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:00 <bechamel> dfamorato: yes, but imo this is the plan B, plan A being updating schema using the api and not the config file | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:04 <dfamorato> bechamel: I don't see how to implement PLAN A unless we put everything into just 1 index.... Which I am strongly against | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:06 -!- pjstevns(~pjstevns@helpoort.xs4all.nl) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:06 -!- pjstevns(~pjstevns@helpoort.xs4all.nl) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:07 <dfamorato> bechamel: more questions before I go ? I should be back in 1 hour | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:09 <bechamel> dfamorato: no, enjoy your meal | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:09 <bechamel> ;) | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:10 <dfamorato> bechamel: thanks... when I come back, i would like to address the concerns of the code review.... Talk to you soon | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:11 <bechamel> dfamorato: ok, maybe i will be away for supper when you come back, but anyway most of the codereview remarks are from cedk :) | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:12 -!- peju(~moore@196.200.64.46) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:15 <cedk> bechamel: did you understand that it is not possible to use one index because id must be unique | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:15 <cedk> bechamel: and int | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:19 -!- sharkcz(~sharkcz@2001:15c0:6747:160::7) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:20 -!- okko1(~okko@dhcp-077-251-140-095.chello.nl) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:23 <cedk> got an idea instead of generating the conf file with all the sources | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:24 <cedk> we could just let the user define in this conf file what he wants to index | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:24 <cedk> so when sphinx starts the xmlpipe_command, we store that it is indexing the defined Model | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:25 <cedk> like that we can substitude ilike search only for indexed Model | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:27 <cedk> and as xmlpipe2 doesn't need the fields or attributes, the conf is simple | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:28 -!- helmor(~helmo@p57B60F5C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:31 -!- plantian1(~ian@c-67-169-72-36.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:32 -!- dba_(~daniel@178.63.150.30) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:33 -!- sebastian__(~sebastian@host100.190-136-175.telecom.net.ar) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:44 -!- peju(~moore@196.200.64.46) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:45 <peju> what IDE would you suggest for tryton development? | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:45 <peju> i need it to do basic stuff like add fields in already existing modules | ||
| 2011-08-19 20:56 -!- peju(~moore@196.200.64.46) has left #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:09 <dfamorato> cedk: bechamel: I'm back | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:10 <dfamorato> cedk: There is a tryton module which allows to select which models are supposed to be indexed.. | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:10 <dfamorato> cedk: you can select product.product or product.category and so on | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:11 <dfamorato> cedk: after that you are supposed to run sphinx conf generator... | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:11 <cedk> dfamorato: I thought it could be the opposite | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:11 <dfamorato> cedk: sorry for not putting that on the readme... I will update documentation as well with th concerns on code review | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:12 <cedk> dfamorato: like that there is no misconfiguration | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:12 <dfamorato> cedk: You mean index all via sphinx by default ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:14 <cedk> dfamorato: no I mean define what is indexed in sphinx conf only | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:16 <dfamorato> cedk: having the user (integrador/admin..) define each model manually on sphinx config file ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:16 <cedk> dfamorato: yes | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:17 <cedk> dfamorato: and when sphinx query Tryton then you store the index in Tryton to know that you can use | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:18 <dfamorato> cedk: sincerely, I think it's too cumbersome.... as it would force the user to know which model they should index | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:19 <dfamorato> cedk: when I think it can be easily definable from the gtk client from a list | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:19 <cedk> dfamorato: but your design can be broken in many places | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:20 <cedk> dfamorato: with mine not because there is only one place where stuff are defined | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:20 <cedk> moreover it should be not so complicated to create source because it is just 2 lines | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:22 <cedk> also I think technical configuration doesn't have to be done in GTK client | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:23 <cedk> especially if the user still have to run a script on the server side | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:25 <dfamorato> cedk: I think I could create a wizard which would guide the person to perform the required tasks, just like happens on setting up the chart of accounts and so on | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:25 <cedk> dfamorato: it is not the same stuffs | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:26 <cedk> dfamorato: chart of account is business configuration, sphinx is technical configuration | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:29 <cedk> it is just like you can not create index in postgresql from the GTK client | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:30 <dfamorato> cedk: And from that we would make the user input what needs to indexed from a 200 possibilities of the models | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:32 <cedk> dfamorato: but indeed there is only few Models that are useful to index | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:32 <cedk> dfamorato: like product, party, sale, invoice etc. | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:33 <helmor> see my new shirt, python 4 ever .. i wear every week once :-) http://www.flickr.com/photos/acidpix/6004496304/ | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:33 <helmor> >>> from __future__ import braces | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:33 <helmor> SyntaxError: not a chance | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:37 -!- hoRn(~jan@dslb-094-223-211-121.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:38 <dfamorato> cedk: but about 1 hour ago, from what I understood from Bertrand, we should index Everything and All things, now we restrict to some things ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:39 -!- cedk_(~ced@ced.homedns.org) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:39 <dfamorato> bechamel: ping | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:39 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:44 <bechamel> dfamorato: pong | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:46 <dfamorato> bechamel: sorry to bother you at night... cedk was directing me to one path and I would like you to participate on that as well, specially because I think it complicates the usage a little bit | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:46 <dfamorato> bechamel: Would you mind check the last 30 min of irc history ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:49 -!- vladimirek(~vladimire@adsl-dyn18.91-127-76.t-com.sk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:50 <bechamel> dfamorato: cedk idea is good because it's always better to have only one source of knowledge, but I also think it's raise other problems | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:51 <bechamel> imo having sphinx indexing will trigger new idea and new usage this is why I push for indexing everything because it will allow to build feature on top of it | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:52 <bechamel> indexing only some field wil means that if I want to add feature on top of fts I have to know which field is indexed an which is not, and that an unnecessary compliquation | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:55 <dfamorato> bechamel: ok, Both you and cedk are my mentors and also the project lead. I will then implement you recomendation in setting which models to be indexed manually | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:55 <cedk> bechamel: no because with xmlpipe2 the schema can be send | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:55 <cedk> bechamel: so a module could extend it | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:56 <dfamorato> cedk: bechamel: now the question is, which of the conf files will we store which models to index ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:56 <bechamel> dfamorato: IMO the first step is ti handle function feild (this will give us some time to think about other stuffs) | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:56 <dfamorato> cedk: bechamel: Sphinx.conf or trytond.conf ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:56 <cedk> dfamorato: sphinx | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:56 <dfamorato> bechamel: i think the function field will be easy to implement | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:57 <dfamorato> i will test and let you guys know | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:57 <bechamel> cedk: how do you want to extend config with modules ? you want to define schema statically in the sphinx config. | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:58 <cedk> bechamel: I don't want to define the schema in shpinx config but in the xml send to it | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:59 <cedk> http://sphinxsearch.com/docs/2.0.1/xmlpipe2.html | ||
| 2011-08-19 21:59 <bechamel> cedk: ok but where to define which field to index ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:00 <cedk> bechamel: Tryton will find it | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:00 <cedk> bechamel: I propose as a first start to put only Char as field | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:01 <bechamel> cedk: ok, I agree with ugins xmlpipe to define schema | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:02 <bechamel> cedk: dfamorato: a question I have is that there is one index per model, so where do we tell sphinx which model/index are we using ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:02 <cedk> bechamel: with -i | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:03 <dfamorato> bechamel: If you don't specify which index you are using, it will search across all indexes | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:03 <cedk> bechamel: but he said that you can also query on all indexes | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:03 <bechamel> I'm talking about indexing (not querying) | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:03 <dfamorato> bechamel: same thing... | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:04 <dfamorato> bechamel: -i index_name | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:04 <dfamorato> bechamel: or --all to reindex all | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:07 <cedk> dfamorato: it is not sphinx who trigger the indexing query? | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:07 <dfamorato> cedk: nop, must be manual or via a cron | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:08 <bechamel> I see that it's specified in the config generated by configuration.py | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:08 <cedk> dfamorato: and then sphinx run the xmlpipe_command? | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:09 <bechamel> cedk: so we are ok that we can define schema trough xml, but we still need to give sphinx the list of model names | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:10 <dfamorato> cedk: because that is what generates the xml stream | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:10 <cedk> bechamel: yes user must add in sphinx.conf the source definition | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:11 <dfamorato> cedk: when we run the indexer, it calls whatver command (or SQL Query in the case of SQL datasource) is defined into the sphinx.conf and starts indexing data | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:11 <cedk> dfamorato: ok I understand | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:12 <dfamorato> bechamel: if we define schema through xml, good, no need to change my current design :) | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:13 <cedk> dfamorato: I think it is better to put the schema code in the tryton module | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:14 <dfamorato> cedk: I don't understand... please explain | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:14 <bechamel> so the config is simply a list of model on which we want indexing, sound simple | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:18 <bechamel> the question is : is sphinx api if we change the schema that is pushed trough xml ? (I.E. indexing stuff before and after module install) | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:19 <bechamel> bbl | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:19 <cedk> dfamorato: for now you generate the XML in a script that is run by sphinx | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:19 <cedk> dfamorato: this script call trytond to get data | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:20 <cedk> dfamorato: I think it is better that the script just call a method on trytond and trytond return the complete XML | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:23 <dfamorato> cedk: I did the way it's done today because you guys requested that http://www.tryton.org/~irclog/2011-07-13.log.html#t2011-07-13_17:20 | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:25 <cedk> dfamorato: but it doesn't say that all the code must be in the script | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:25 <cedk> dfamorato: it is more modular if the xml creation is done in the module because you can override it easily | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:28 <dfamorato> cedk: I can't imagine any specific reason why we should overwrite the xml creation | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:28 <cedk> also that's why we asked to every students to upload code in early stage because the dev process is made of iteration | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:28 <cedk> dfamorato: I got many | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:28 <cedk> dfamorato: a module that will add extra field to index | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:29 <dfamorato> cedk: aren't all fields supposed to be indexed ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:29 <cedk> dfamorato: a module that will add different language on the same record | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:29 <cedk> dfamorato: for now only Char | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:30 <dfamorato> cedk: Wasn't i supposed to create a different index by each language ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:30 <cedk> dfamorato: yes but you don't know what other people will need | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:30 <dfamorato> cedk: specially because of the morphology and stemming process, they are different for each language, and therefore, each index must be diffenret for each language | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:31 <cedk> dfamorato: yes but you don't know what will be the usage of other people | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:31 <cedk> we work like that in Tryton, because it is about framework | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:32 <dfamorato> cedk: and today, char, text and selection are full text indexable | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:34 <dfamorato> cedk: So you want the xml stream generator to be put into the tryton module ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:34 <cedk> dfamorato: yes | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:35 <cedk> ACTION bbl | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:35 <dfamorato> cedk: and what else should this module do ? | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:37 -!- woakas(~woakas@200.106.218.64) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:40 <cedk> ACTION | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:41 <cedk> dfamorato: there is still the random crawler | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:41 <cedk> dfamorato: I don't know how you can manage it but perhaps the module should return some more random records | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:42 <cedk> dfamorato: also I think you should try to use proteus to query the server like that you will get direct import and xml-rpc | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:44 <bechamel> back | ||
| 2011-08-19 22:56 -!- ciupicri(~ciupicri@81.180.234.249) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2011-08-19 23:38 <dfamorato> cedk: bechamel: ping | ||
| 2011-08-19 23:41 <bechamel> dfamorato: pong | ||
| 2011-08-19 23:42 <dfamorato> i have updated the code to implement some of the things we discussed today | ||
| 2011-08-19 23:42 <dfamorato> bechamel: pushed to code review | ||
| 2011-08-19 23:44 <bechamel> dfamorato: ok | ||
| 2011-08-19 23:45 <bechamel> dfamorato: I will check it tomorrow |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!