IDempiere/FullMeeting20120613
⇐ Table of Contents | Full Meeting Minutes | Full Meeting 2012-06-13
CarlosRuiz: morning
red1: Moin from Malaysia
a42niem: good afternoon from germany
Nicolas: Hi !
Javier_SETSOFTWA: hello everyone.
red1: Hi Javier
red1: Hi hengsin
red1: hi Nicolas
red1: Ola a42niem
hengsin: hi red1
Javier_SETSOFTWA: el del iva?
Javier_SETSOFTWA: sorry
Javier_SETSOFTWA: another chat.
red1: hengsin: while doing the windows installer, it seems easier to do the setup
red1: but its hard to get the bundles going all OK at times
red1: but moving on i want to do a test bundle and try the 2Pack MF you told me about some time back
red1: there is a Junit4OSGi but implemented for Felix
red1: and according to their book, we can use their GUI tool for Equinox to reference the tests
red1: when are we freezing the iDempiere for 1.0 release?
CarlosRuiz: good time to talk about 1.0 release
red1: Bad time for football fans
CarlosRuiz: at this moment I would focus all efforts on release tasks / tests of all functionalities / bug fixing
CarlosRuiz: I mean wide tests - trying to cover all features
red1: i still find the launcher jar pointing at the wrong jar.. but as i noted, its not a problem as its a matter of changing the name
CarlosRuiz: which file ?
CarlosRuiz: in the repository
red1: i have to wait till it pops up again as i mixed alot of files both Mac and Windows
CarlosRuiz: I tested on windows and it didn't complain
CarlosRuiz: I cannot test on mac
red1: maybe i did not removed completely old scripts
red1: consider it solved then. I just remembered a new zip was OK today at Windows
hahmed: Hi red1, Carlos, everyone else
hahmed: oh and Shukran red1
red1: afwan
red1: I am happy to meet another new contributor to the project
CarlosRuiz: Hi Hahmed
Nicolas: @CarlosRuiz : i wanted to know if 361 transition version will still be maintained after idempiere 1.0 will be released ? or should we consider current version is the more advanced (no more bug fixing or enhancement) ?
CarlosRuiz: must be similar to what happened with 342
CarlosRuiz: I keep releasing bug fixes until I have customers in such version or until I receive bug fixes from community
CarlosRuiz: but most probably you won't see new functionalities there - but in iDempiere
Nicolas: ok, sounds logical ; the aim is to migrate into idempiere
tbayen: CarlosRuiz, what is the "official" version for your customers? Do you give them 361 in a actual state?
CarlosRuiz: yes - 361 + LCO extension
CarlosRuiz: and of course personalizations that are of specific interest of each customer
Nicolas: I've try to implement a more user friendly way to zoom from InfoPanels, using double click instead of Zoom button ; but it was not a real success. Anyone would be interested in it ? and/or have any idea to implement it ? (http://red1.org/adempiere/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1619)
red1: i can only read your good works Nicolas but not try it yet
Nicolas: thanks :-) ; should i create a jira ticket for it ? i think that would be a great enhancement ; actually 90% of our customer try to zoom with a double click and it close window. They don't understand why. I guess you all should have the problem ?
CarlosRuiz: Nicolas - I'll try to check it after release - there was also a recommendation to review the changes that MjMcKay did on search windows
Nicolas: ok
hahmed: So when is plan to release 1.0?
Javier_SETSOFTWA: hello everyone again. I have some questions about two different topics
Edwin_Ang: hi everyone
a42niem: for the statistics - or to get a feeling for work until release: currently there are 40 bugs of which 25 are categorized as major, critical or blocker
CarlosRuiz: guys, announcing here that I'll be on vacations from june 14 to 21 - so I won't attend next meeting
Javier_SETSOFTWA: first ii want to know the risk of using the new average cost improvement if i have been using a old version wich not require use PO in every reception?
hahmed: Hi Edwin, and thank you the FA work. I had been waiting for it.
red1: Hi Edwin_Ang
Edwin_Ang: hi hahmed
Edwin_Ang: hi red1
red1: So Edwin_Ang my question in the forum was, "Is your FA standing on what i tried to do ?"
Javier_SETSOFTWA: Another issue was landed cost and avg cost, is it working fine or there are known scenarios where costing will crash.
Edwin_Ang: i am starting from where you left
red1: Javier_SETSOFTWA: do you know the business subkect matter of Costing in the first place?
Edwin_Ang: but, yours are more to robert klein's
Edwin_Ang: while i'm more to teo sarca's
red1: IMHO risks in ERP is more of a subject matter than technical as technical ALWAYS have bugs
red1: and SMEs are clever in figuring out the fallback or manual contgency
hahmed: a42niem: bug categorization is not very correct since the reporter is selecting that, for instance I don't consider http://jira.idempiere.com/browse/IDEMPIERE-267 a blocker, while IDEMPIERE-220 is not really a bug but a question
red1: and how things crashed are usually noted before hand by SMEs (subject matter experts)
red1: so SMEs create test cases and and test against that
red1: i have done some testing on both topics you asked.. so you can go to those test cases and ask which case is tested on the new engine
red1: and CarlosRuiz has done up tests for online inspection
CarlosRuiz: good point hahmed - I'll try to do some triage for those blockers and criticals
CarlosRuiz: Javier_SETSOFTWA, I would expect you to tell us if you find bugs :-)
red1: Javier is asking if you think there will be bugs
CarlosRuiz: we have published our tests - and they're working
CarlosRuiz: http://demo.globalqss.com:8089/AvgCostSuite.BasicTest?pageHistory&resultDate=20120610152627
red1: I am trying to answer that even God cannot answer or already did answer
CarlosRuiz: is your homework to conduct more tests and notify problems
red1: i think what homework is needed is to define his particular scenario of his client
Javier_SETSOFTWA: i know allways will be bugs.
Javier_SETSOFTWA: like any other software
red1: because what that client use to do is what the system will be tested on
Javier_SETSOFTWA: but the first question is
Javier_SETSOFTWA: because now costing change.
Javier_SETSOFTWA: and required PO.for receptions
Javier_SETSOFTWA: but i think later i'll find if there are problems with migration and re creating cost entries.
CarlosRuiz: Javier_SETSOFTWA, we announce the backward compatibility issues - you analyze and mitigate the risk
Javier_SETSOFTWA: ok
Javier_SETSOFTWA: thanks.
Javier_SETSOFTWA: i'll be around, for share what i find.
red1: it will be hard to test though
red1: due to absence of an SME
red1: even locallt i could not understand my accountant
red1: so i could not make a real test
- CarlosRuiz in triage mode :-)
red1: should we have a bug day?
red1: hi again Edwin_Ang
Edwin_Ang: hi again too
red1: yeah my question again.. is your FA similar to what i reviewed from Teo's?
red1: and u just add on top of it?
red1: or new methods for Asset creation
red1: which are missing AFAIK
Edwin_Ang: i fix it
Edwin_Ang: just add the missing parts
red1: so yours is based on that?
Edwin_Ang: yep
red1: so i can take yours back and try to apply the same tests i made
Edwin_Ang: i removed his romanian localization
red1: i also did that.. changing in Element table
red1: but i did that considered last minute
Edwin_Ang: i don't think your previous test can be used on this one
Edwin_Ang: teo is doing depreciation in a different way from robert klein's
red1: what i know is that its different documents
red1: and Teo rewrite the code
red1: but the tests are simple
red1: it just tests for the docs produced and its acct consequence
red1: the tests can be easily recoded
Edwin_Ang: Teo's code is very much different from Klein's
Edwin_Ang: it's just totally different
Edwin_Ang: Klein's depreciation is much complete in feature
red1: i see
red1: if u can write some notes as i did.. maybe i can compare the notes
red1: i documented what i found out.. to help me remember the trail study
red1: both seems to do for their separate requirements
Edwin_Ang: to be honest, i'm not as good as you in documentation
Edwin_Ang: i'm working on a draft
Edwin_Ang: will try to finish in a day or two
red1: to be honest i am not that good in anything else :D
red1: so you maybe able to help from what you did
red1: bbl
Edwin_Ang: ok
Edwin_Ang: anyway, related to my FA work.. i need to ask for an opinion
Edwin_Ang: starting from FA, i've done a lot of coding by introducing new documents
Edwin_Ang: i found that i can have better control on GL entries if i use documents
Edwin_Ang: hence, i've created a lot of document with docbasetype GL Documents
Edwin_Ang: is it ok if we introduce a subdoctype column in c_doctype?
Edwin_Ang: there is already a subdoctypeso column.. but i think a more general "SubDocType" column will be better
hengsin: edwin - why not a new docbasetype ?
CarlosRuiz: Edwin_Ang, I have understood the GL_Category as the subtype for GL_Journals
Edwin_Ang: @Hengsin: I am not an accountant. So I take it very carefully to add new docbasetype
Edwin_Ang: IMHO, i can take safely use GL Documents for Asset Addition documents, Asset Disposal, Amortization, etc
Edwin_Ang: @CarlosRuiz: my understanding of GL Category, it serves for all docbasetype
Edwin_Ang: not GL only
Nicolas__: Yep, GL_Category are used for all document. It is used to set a 'sales' or 'bank' or 'purchase' label to facts
Edwin_Ang: recently, i found use of GL Category to help me group fact details
hengsin: edwin, that's not consistent with the design of compiere - gl is only for manual entry, all trx should use its own docbasetype
Edwin_Ang: we have GL Journal and GL Document
Edwin_Ang: i use GL Journal for manual entries
Edwin_Ang: for years i've been wondering why there exists any GL Documents
Edwin_Ang: recently i found it may suit for extension documents
Edwin_Ang: like in my current FA, i use it for asset addition, asset depreciation, and asset disposal
Edwin_Ang: however i need to differentiate those documents
CarlosRuiz: yes - what I mean - when I create new GLDocTypes
CarlosRuiz: I differentiate all of them via the GL_Category
CarlosRuiz: you have two ways - or you create many GL Doctypes with docbasetype GL Journal
CarlosRuiz: or you use one GL Journal and many GL Categories
CarlosRuiz: accountant choice
Edwin_Ang: IMHO, GL Category is more flexible for each client
Edwin_Ang: except you propose to change the access level to All
CarlosRuiz: ?
CarlosRuiz: sorry - don't understand
Edwin_Ang: i'm not very good in english
CarlosRuiz: you say you need to differentiate GL Journals - asset addition, asset depreciation, asset disposal
Edwin_Ang: so let me use example
Edwin_Ang: let say i use the code ADD for Asset Addition
CarlosRuiz: so I mean that you can do that with three documents (all based as GL Journals) - or you can do that with one GL Journal and three GL categories
Edwin_Ang: in Doc_AssetAddition, i will add the code: IF (docbasetype=GLD and GL Category=ADD) then the document will be posted as Asset Addition
Edwin_Ang: now.. i need to lock the GL Category value as ADD across all instances that use FA
Edwin_Ang: if using GL Category, there are two ways to set this up
Edwin_Ang: either i set the ADD in System
Edwin_Ang: or in every client we add a GL Category ADD
Edwin_Ang: so that asset addition can post
CarlosRuiz: no - you must make that configurable
CarlosRuiz: somewhere in FA configuration you must define that category ADD is used for asset addition
CarlosRuiz: I guess such column does not exist - just advising
CarlosRuiz: guys - I have to go - to claim my passport - c u then
