| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Mon May 21 00:00:01 CEST 2012 | ||
| 2012-05-21 02:54 -!- caravel(~caravel@108.Red-83-44-231.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) has left #tryton | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:26 <sisalp> hello, are client profiles managed in .tryton ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:27 <sisalp> does proteus need .tryton file to find the server ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:30 <cedk> sisalp: it is in .config/tryton/x.y/ | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:30 <cedk> sisalp: proteus doesn't need anything from the client | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:47 <jcavallo> Hello, is there a way to 'unfetch' a code review with hgreview ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:47 <cedk> jcavallo: hg revert | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:51 <jcavallo> Well, what I am trying to do is uploading a code review, but hg review says that I 'do not own the current review', which is a review I fetched some time ago. The only modified file is the one I want to submit, so reverting is no good. | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:55 <cedk> jcavallo: the review id is stored in .hg/review_id | ||
| 2012-05-21 11:55 <jcavallo> cedk : is it safe to remove it ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:20 <jcavallo> cedk : Ok, removed it and it worked, but the username is not the one associated to the email address I provided, another cache somewhere ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:34 <cedk> jcavallo: just change it | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:37 <jcavallo> cedk : Where ? I mean, the username that's been used is neither the one in the .hgrc nor the one I provided when asked (hg review -m 'foo' => 'Email (login for uploading)') | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:38 <cedk> jcavallo: just type it | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:38 <jcavallo> cedk : Well I think I did. I won't try right now to avoid polluting codereview but I'll make sure U do next time. | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:39 <jcavallo> cedk : thank you anyway | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:43 <sisalp> cedk: where does proteus get the server ip and port , if not in .config/tryton ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:46 <cedk> sisalp: from your code | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:47 <sisalp> ok, so on the line which creates the database I have to use paramaters for that. Question is how can I discover the available options ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:54 <cedk> sisalp: help(proteus.config) | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:58 <sisalp> cedk: I get this set_trytond(database_name=None, user='admin', database_type=None, language='en_US', password='', config_file=None) | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:59 <sisalp> next step is to add my parameters in config_file | ||
| 2012-05-21 12:59 <sisalp> how can I find the syntax of this file ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:00 <cedk> sisalp: it is the trytond config file | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:04 <sisalp> cedk: I find this in trytond.conf : jsonrpc = localhost:8000 | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:05 <sisalp> cedk: I guess it is the way to indicate it is remote, or is it the xml-rpc line which is to adapt ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:06 <cedk> sisalp: no, for xmlrpc you must use proteus.config.set_xmlrpc | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:07 <sisalp> cedk: to be sure, jsonrpc is the default ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:09 <cedk> sisalp: no, there is no jsonrpc | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:11 <sisalp2> cedk: so I can use only local or xmlrpc and the script is different in either case. Is it correct ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:13 <cedk> sisalp2: the script is the same, it is just the call to config.set_xxx | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:15 <sisalp2> cedk: so we code that it uses xmlrpc : help(proteus.config.set_xmlrpc) | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:15 <sisalp2> set_xmlrpc(url) | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:15 <sisalp2> Set XML-RPC as backend | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:16 <sisalp2> which port is used ? the one there is in trytond config or another one like url:port ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:16 <sisalp2> url ":" port | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:18 <cedk> sisalp2: don't understand | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:19 <sisalp2> cedk: I need to connect to my trytond server, is this correct : set_xmlrpc(myhost.com:8967) ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:21 <cedk> sisalp2: missing: http://username:password@myhost:8967 | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:24 <sisalp2> cedk: thank you for your patience, I think I'm all set. | ||
| 2012-05-21 13:25 <sisalp2> I plan to write an introduction for noobs when work will be achieved. | ||
| 2012-05-21 15:49 <sisalp> is production available on tryton projct demo ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 16:09 <cedk> sisalp: no | ||
| 2012-05-21 16:10 <sisalp> ok. Its name will be "production" | ||
| 2012-05-21 16:10 <cedk> sisalp: yes | ||
| 2012-05-21 20:43 <grasbauer1> only for having it said: the values vor view_ids in the xml should be stripped to have the posibility to write them line by line (account_invoice_cash_discount.cash_discount_line_view_tree,account_invoice_cash_discount.cash_discount_line_view_form) | ||
| 2012-05-21 20:49 <grasbauer1> migration done (sweat) | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:39 <grasbauer1> cedk:ping | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:39 <grasbauer1> cedk: ping (sorry) | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:41 <cedk> grasbauer1: pong | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:42 <grasbauer1> cedk: I just packed the clent with the new pygtk . because of issues with copy and past - its seems to work | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:43 <grasbauer1> cedk: meanwhile i was thinkíng about the errorhandling of the client | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:44 <grasbauer1> cedk: because we are implemneting a lot of stuff, mostly the errors are not related to the core | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:45 <cedk> grasbauer1: which version of pygtk? | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:46 <grasbauer1> cedk: in the conf is a setting to smtp - a small class handling the formatting of an errormessage and a setting in systemsetting, where to send the message would simplyfy the reporting of errors | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:46 <cedk> grasbauer1: using smtp is bad because it is often block | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:47 <cedk> grasbauer1: and there is already the xmlrpc configuration | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:48 <grasbauer1> cedk: yes - but every company using tryton has to setup a xml-rpc-compatible issue tracker | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:49 <grasbauer1> cedk: and has to pack a own client i think | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:49 <cedk> grasbauer1: there is one that exist roundup | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:49 <cedk> grasbauer1: no need to pack, just adapt config | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:50 <grasbauer1> cedk: yes - true | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:52 <grasbauer1> cedk: pygtk 2.24.2 | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:52 <cedk> grasbauer1: downloaded from ? | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:52 <grasbauer1> cedk: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/binaries/win32/pygtk/2.24/ | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:53 <cedk> grasbauer1: ok, I will update the windows host for the next build | ||
| 2012-05-21 22:54 <grasbauer1> cedk: and i have set the rule for alternating rows in windows - it looks a bit like linux ;) | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:02 <grasbauer1> cedk: so much ideas for improvements - but stressed with keeping the productive systems running. checking in form_relate if the domain results in something would be nice ... | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:40 <cedk> grasbauer1: no sure to understand | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:42 <grasbauer1> cedk: form_relate has a domain - if the doamin results in records to show - show them. if not, break the action and do not open a new tab | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:43 <cedk> grasbauer1: I don't think it is good design | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:43 <grasbauer1> cedk: why? | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:43 <cedk> grasbauer1: action must give feedback even if it is empty | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:44 <cedk> grasbauer1: if you are interrested in relate see: http://bugs.tryton.org/issue2518 | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:45 <cedk> grasbauer1: or the button should be deactivated but this will cost too much | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:47 <grasbauer1> cedk: yes - deactivating with 1000 records will slow down the client - so I think the user expect, that a relation has a result in records. if there are no records and the action results in nothing, he know, that on the other model is nothing related | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:48 <grasbauer1> cedk: that is a clear feedback - no relation results in nothing | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:49 <grasbauer1> ACTION one wizard left for migration | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:49 <cedk> grasbauer1: no, the user will simply think that something doesn't work | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:51 <grasbauer1> cedk: i dont think so - he espect that everything works - so no result is an information that there are no related objects | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:52 <grasbauer1> cedk: we have a simple usecase for this | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:52 <cedk> grasbauer1: so he will click one or two times more and after that he will think that the button doesn't always work | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:52 <cedk> grasbauer1: sorry but no, user doesn't expect everything works | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:53 <grasbauer1> cedk: if it is a core module - yes, if it is one of ours - no :-D | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:54 <grasbauer1> cedk: but I think that a button who says "Show relations" can result in nothing, if there are no relations | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:54 <cedk> grasbauer1: no, user are always septic | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:55 <grasbauer1> ACTION 37 Persons online - let's make a poll | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:55 <grasbauer1> cedk: raise_user_warning is a bit to much ... | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:56 <grasbauer1> cedk: so we need a show_user_info | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:57 <grasbauer1> cedk: like the annoying infos appearing in windows and the latest ubuntu-releases | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:57 <cedk> grasbauer1: more over, user could want to create record there | ||
| 2012-05-21 23:58 <cedk> grasbauer1: it is just like if when you click on Parties menu entry nothing happens if there is no parties |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!