| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Tue Nov 20 00:00:01 CET 2012 | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:13 <sisalp> cedk: I think adding a name and an comment field on comm modes should be close to what I want | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:15 <sisalp> cedk: having several phone numbers without any name (reception, direct...) nor comment (special instructions) is not realistic | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:19 <sisalp> cedk: I see comment is already there, so only name (and maybe gender) would be to be added | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:20 <sisalp> cedk: I didn't see comments field because it's too big ;-) | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:23 <cedk> sisalp: why not if you just need simple data | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:24 <sisalp> if data are not simple, then we go back to the previous discussion | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:28 <sisalp> cedk: I cannot search a party on a contact mechanism | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:30 <sisalp> cedk I think renaming "contact mechanism" to "contacts" and providing a few text fields (gender, name, job, comment) could be a base for discussion | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:33 <sisalp> it would be far easier to understand than party_relationship | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:33 <cedk> sisalp: perhaps but it is a wrong modelisation | ||
| 2012-11-20 01:36 <sisalp> but a phone number without the name of the line holder doesn't make sens anyway | ||
| 2012-11-20 09:13 <corro> sisalp: I see there was some discussion about a potential module party_relationship last night. Actualy there exists already an implementation for that: https://bitbucket.org/openworkplace/trytond_party_relationship. It allows you to define arbitrary symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships, originally meant to represent family structures. Maybe it helps you organize your parties. | ||
| 2012-11-20 09:14 <rmu> sisalp: another possibility would be to make new object "party.contact", and associate party.contact_mechanism and party.address with it. then you could have a contact "delivery", a contact "invoice", and multiple "person"-contacts. | ||
| 2012-11-20 13:02 <sisalp> rmu: I don't need a more complex solution. If the contact has an address, then he may be a party and linked by relationship | ||
| 2012-11-20 13:05 <sisalp> rmu: in most of the cases, you have a list of business cards and you want to keep this info in the party context | ||
| 2012-11-20 13:06 <sisalp> rmu: and a contact is not comparable to an invoicing address. I agree it is a mistake in openerp. | ||
| 2012-11-20 14:45 <sisalp> corro: thank you for the pointer to party relationship module. It looks as expected. I think it would be a nightmare to manage contacts this way. | ||
| 2012-11-20 14:46 <sisalp> corro: But as we need such a module it is probably a good example. | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:29 <coeps> Hi folks, | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:30 <coeps> I have an error that max recursion depth exceeded in cmp, when I upgrade my own module from 2.4 to 2.6.x | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:30 <coeps> the module works correctly in 2.2 (development version ) and after upgrade to 2.4. | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:31 <coeps> After uprgrading to 2.6 I get the error. The error occurs even though I did not install the module. Just being in the "modules" directory produces that error. | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:32 <coeps> It is reproducable | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:33 <coeps> Error in model.py, line 611, in __getattr__ | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:34 <coeps> line: if name == 'id': | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:34 <coeps> do I have to post this somewhere? what data is needed? | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:35 <cedk> coeps: did you change the code to follow the AR ? | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:35 <coeps> what AR | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:36 <cedk> Active Record | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:36 <coeps> Uhh, I was pointed to the wiki last time, according to that there is no action required from 2.4 -> to 2.6. | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:37 <cedk> coeps: which wiki? | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:38 <coeps> http://code.google.com/p/tryton/wiki/Release_2_6_0 | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:38 <cedk> coeps: it is the roadmap | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:38 <cedk> coeps: you must look at the CHANGELOG | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:39 <coeps> on the tryton-website? | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:40 <cedk> coeps: in the code | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:44 <cedk> coeps: I wrote this to help migrate modules: http://www.b2ck.com/~ced/active_record_migration.txt | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:49 <coeps> cedk: I wil have a look, thank you, but honestly guys: I really think that project is great, I follow all the stuff you post in the internet, I spent apporx. 200 hours for just playing around with tryton, but If you do not get your docu right, the project will fail. Believe me, I have loads of experience regarding software (erp) stuff. I am close to giving up. (tommorow I will give it a try anyways :) right now I am pretty tired). :( | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:51 <cedk> coeps: for me the doc is right, certainly not complete but right | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:54 <coeps> But where is it? I didn't find it on the tryton-page. there is no hint, that I have to adjust the module. I was expecting, the active record is a "backend" thing with now impact on the api. Maybe I am overlooking stuff. | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:54 <cedk> coeps: it is in the CHANGELOG | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:57 <coeps> cdek: can this be found on the website? or just in the code? | ||
| 2012-11-20 21:59 <cedk> coeps: it is in each package | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:05 <cedk> coeps: what are your modules? | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:06 <coeps> party -> country, product, and my own simple one. | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:06 <coeps> my own was just a little try to get a feeling of the capabilities first. | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:07 <cedk> coeps: did you publish it somewhere? | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:07 <coeps> No, not yet, it is rather simplistic.:) | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:09 <cedk> coeps: so I guess it will be fast to port it to 2.6 | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:09 <cedk> coeps: globally: setup the register method and remove the instanciation | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:26 <coeps> I just compared the old party.py with the old one. I understand what is meant with the instanciation. But I have no clue what I have t do with register. | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:34 <coeps> ceck: I will do this tomorrow, I go through the doku, the file you posted for me, and will compare some code in 2.4 and 2.6. I hope I can get some of your (reliable, thank you for that) help tomorrow if needed. My module is basically a portion of invoice, comparing these should help. Thank you so far. | ||
| 2012-11-20 22:45 -!- plantian(~ian@174.134.200.53) has left #tryton |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!