| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Thu May 16 00:00:01 CEST 2013 | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:09 <giedrius> hi guys | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:09 <giedrius> i have a question, how do you manage sales/purchase returns for products with FIFO cost method? | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:11 <giedrius> normally when products are valuated with FIFO (or LIFO), on return you should be allowed to select the coresponding stock move | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:13 <giedrius> but it seems tryton's returns are based off the average price valuation | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:15 <giedrius> now i'm thinking how this could be improved on tryton | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:16 <giedrius> ugly but simple implementation would be to add a field stock move where the user can select the coresponding stock move | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:18 <giedrius> much nicer things would be to add additional objects (sale.return, purchase.return), where the user just need to select lines of returned sale or purchase order | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:20 <pokoli> hi, there are problems with codereview server? I'm getting abort: HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error when trying to upload | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:21 <giedrius> pokoli: sometimes it happens, try to rerun | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:24 <pokoli> giedrius: thank's its working now | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:25 <giedrius> cedk: what are benefits of having sales return on the same object as sales order? | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:34 <cedk> giedrius: what is the benefit of not having | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:35 <giedrius> cedk: i mean, why it was not implemented as separate object, where return lines are selected from existing sales lines instead of re-entering information (like now) | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:36 <cedk> giedrius: don't care about information | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:36 <giedrius> cedk: having such a model would allow to have correct FIFO returns | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:37 <cedk> giedrius: FIFO is correct | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:38 <cedk> giedrius: it just doesn't fit your needs | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:38 <cedk> giedrius: and what you suggest is not right any way | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:38 <giedrius> cedk: why? | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:38 <cedk> giedrius: having what you ask is such a mess | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:38 <cedk> giedrius: a return doesn't come only from 1 move | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:39 <cedk> giedrius: any way, if you want that, just add a link between moves | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:42 <giedrius> cedk: situation: 5 products bought for 10€, than another 10 for 32.50€. Now we want to return these 5 products. Currently, on return the stock value is lowered by 125€, and not by 50€. | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:43 <giedrius> cedk: for returns it uses average price method instead of FIFO | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:44 <cedk> giedrius: yes you can update the price on the move | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:45 <giedrius> cedk: but why not make it correct for FIFO? | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:45 <giedrius> cedk: so user doesn not need to make manual adjustments | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:46 <cedk> giedrius: it is you who said it is not correct | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:46 <cedk> giedrius: it is just your POV | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:46 <cedk> giedrius: by the way, we already had this discussion | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:47 <giedrius> cedk: in my country, we have strict methods for stock valuation | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:47 <giedrius> cedk: each stock valuation must be used depending on product type | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:48 <giedrius> cedk: i know that in Belgium you do care much about cost method (it is not regulated by state, i guess) | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:49 <giedrius> don't* | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:51 <giedrius> cedk: here, average method only can be used for products which are mixed together (mostly liquids like gasoline), LIFO - for products which cannot be physically taken which arrived first (sand and stuff like that), and for all other cases FIFO must be used | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:53 <giedrius> cedk: so here things are strict, you cannot use mix cost methods for stocks | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:54 <cedk> giedrius: it doesn't change anything to what I said | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:54 <giedrius> cedk: if stock is valuated with FIFO on purchase/sale it cannot use different cost method for return | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:56 <giedrius> cedk: using current method like it is implemented on tryton, company can decrease it's profit (so can avoid taxes) | ||
| 2013-05-16 14:58 <cedk> giedrius: this is wrong, any cost method is always wrong | ||
| 2013-05-16 15:01 <giedrius> cedk: how it could be? | ||
| 2013-05-16 15:02 <giedrius> cedk: it could be wrong in context of physical product, but how it could be wrong on stock valuation? | ||
| 2013-05-16 15:05 <giedrius> cedk: i know it is my problem, but i'm looking how it could be improved for all other users | ||
| 2013-05-16 15:06 <cedk> giedrius: just set the price you want on the move | ||
| 2013-05-16 15:08 <giedrius> cedk: yes, it is workable solution, but not a convinient one for oridinar user | ||
| 2013-05-16 15:08 <giedrius> cedk: imagine situation where you need to make return for order with 50 lines or so | ||
| 2013-05-16 15:11 <cedk> giedrius: in any cases it will be | ||
| 2013-05-16 15:17 <giedrius> cedk: having this could help i guess: sale.return with many sale.return.line. In line you can encode sale.line and quantity | ||
| 2013-05-16 17:32 -!- pietervdr(52ab65e9@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.171.101.233) has left #tryton | ||
| 2013-05-16 18:51 <MartinGuzman> Hello everyone! I'm new using tryton. I was reading the documentation and doing several tests and was wondering if there is a way to create two (tree) views of the same model and in some places use one and in others use the other one? | ||
| 2013-05-16 18:51 <MartinGuzman> For example: I have two models, each one with a field One2Many to the model party.party. However, in the first model I would like to show the tree view with some columns (and editable on top) and in the second model I would like the tree view with some other columns (and editable on bottom). How I can specify in each model which view to use? | ||
| 2013-05-16 18:58 <cedk> MartinGuzman: yes just specify the right view to use | ||
| 2013-05-16 19:02 <MartinGuzman> hello cedk! how? I'm reading http://doc.tryton.org/2.8/trytond/doc/ref/models/fields.html#one2many and I don't find how to specify the right view... | ||
| 2013-05-16 19:10 <cedk> MartinGuzman: it is on the view | ||
| 2013-05-16 19:10 <cedk> MartinGuzman: see view_ids: http://doc.tryton.org/2.8/trytond/doc/topics/views/index.html#field | ||
| 2013-05-16 19:12 <MartinGuzman> cedk, thank you! i'm going to try.. :) | ||
| 2013-05-16 21:01 -!- [1]b0r7(~b0r7@f054035239.adsl.alicedsl.de) has left #tryton | ||
| 2013-05-16 22:26 <joac> Hi, Im creating a proteus script to build a trytond instance, but, when I login using the client, I can get a lot off errors with sequences: | ||
| 2013-05-16 22:28 <joac> ProgrammingError: relation "ir_sequence_1" does not exist | ||
| 2013-05-16 22:28 <joac> LINE 1: SELECT nextval('"ir_sequence_1"') | ||
| 2013-05-16 22:28 <joac> Im using tryton 2.8 | ||
| 2013-05-16 22:32 <joac> ie, when I try to create a new party | ||
| 2013-05-16 22:51 <joac> If I create a database using the standar client, and install all modules, this error doesn't happen | ||
| 2013-05-16 22:51 <joac> any idea? | ||
| 2013-05-16 22:58 <joac> cedk: ^ | ||
| 2013-05-16 23:32 <cedk> joac: looks like the party sequence is misconfigured | ||
| 2013-05-16 23:54 -!- FWiesing(~FWiesing@mail.tryton.at) has left #tryton |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!