IDempiere/FullMeeting20140226

⇐ Table of Contents | Full Meeting Minutes | Full Meeting 2014-02-26

CarlosRuiz: Good Morning
tbayen: Daarestiet!
JanThielemann: hi
nmicoud: Bonjour
CarlosRuiz: as usual will be peer reviewing queue
red1: Hi CarlosRuiz wonder if you can accept https://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1613
red1: Which i help hieplq test
CarlosRuiz: sure - checking
tbayen: JanThielemann, do you got an application from "Gerhard Niegl" and two friends from Austria for the german meeting? Now we are really international. ;-)
red1: It is a huge step towards making BOM Drop as a Configurator without using Libero's
red1: tbayen: the Sosialist International?
JanThielemann: tbayen: yes they are comming
red1: They are still Germans right?
red1: Hope to make it global in Vietnam then :D
tbayen: Fine. I wonder why such a small number of germans came to the World conference but for this small meeting the interest seems quite high. It seems we are rising.
red1: Hm.. i am afraid of that.
tbayen: red1, don't ask if austrians are german - especially not when one is in the same room. Haha!
red1: I was hoping for another war.
red1: Oops.. we are in a meeting! So..
red1: hieplq has suggested i look into a reverse function for Production window
red1: i am doing that now
JanThielemann: hitler was austrian and most people in the world believe he was german. don't be stupid. know your dictator, know your countries...
red1: I was in a car with an Austrian and when we drove back from Germany, our exhaust pipe came off.
red1: It was then that i learned the difference between Germany and Austria.
Deepak: good for knowledge, not for work..
Deepak: Hi Carlos
CarlosRuiz: Hi Deepak
Deepak: IDEMPIERE-1770, I think we discussed in past
Deepak: But did not found ticket, So creating new one
Deepak: We are planning to start on developing that feature and looking for suggestion on design or any contributions
CarlosRuiz: ok
CarlosRuiz: BTW, tbayen made a comment on IDEMPIERE-1572 peer review
Deepak: Sorry I missed that
Deepak: Carlos, I think we have fixed, I missed it some where
Deepak: But only done in zk
Deepak: not worked on swing
CarlosRuiz: no problem - we can do it just on zk initially
CarlosRuiz: but what we thought is that is important to keep starting with the default values - instead of starting with the last saved
tbayen: I work with IDEMPIERE-1572 for some time but I am not happy. :-(
CarlosRuiz: about IDEMPIERE-1770 - is the purpose of M_InOutLineMA? I see the M_InOutLineMA is not present on material receipt neither shipment windows
Deepak: tbayen, did I know reason other then 2 points you reported?
Deepak: CarlosRuiz you are correct about IDEMPIERE-1770, it is about M_InOutLineMA
Deepak: Making attribute tab accessible to users
tbayen: The both things I wrote are the main points. Additional to that I thought about another apporach:
tbayen: In the process parameter windows you have a context menu like with every data field. There is a menu item to set the default value. This item dos not work in a process parameter window but only in normal data entry windows. I wonder if it is a good idea to make this work. Then the user can choose his default values field by field. wdyt?
tbayen: This way has nothing to do with you IDEMPIERE-1572 code. Both ways can be implemented.
Deepak: Thomas, I am trying to understand your suggestion
Deepak: But I am not sure I understood it well
CarlosRuiz: that's a good idea - implement Preferences also for process parameter fields
CarlosRuiz: independent from 1572 as you pointed
tbayen: independent from 1572, yes.
Deepak: Yes, Thomas that will be good features
tbayen: To explain it: In the process parameter window: If you press the right mouse key on a data field there opens a context menu (This is true for Swing). There is an item to set a Preference (or default, I don't know the english translation at this moment). This menu entry does not work but throw an Exception.
nmicoud: implementing preferences for process param sounds good. But, note that some default values of params must not be overwritten at user level: eg: you can define @C_Invoice_ID@ to get the current invoice. Users must not overwrite it with 1000012 (for instance)
CarlosRuiz: red1, hieplq, did you notice that "BOM Type" appears unordered? strange :-) in my list appears (altern3, altern1, altern2 ... 9) 3 before the ordered from 1 to 9
CarlosRuiz: nmicoud, in such case you can make it readonly
tbayen: It would be helpful for some users to make it work. Then you get 1) the process default if you have no preferences set, 2) your user preference if it is set and 3) you can load a saved record with your idempiere-1572. The first two work at field level the third for the whole record.
nmicoud: CarlosRuiz: right, but the read-only is based on a condition.
CarlosRuiz: yep - and we would need to take care that read-only doesn't allow to set a preference
tbayen: What nmicoud says is a good point about idempiere-1572. This saves the whole record but it is not always a good idea to save it as a whole. What about a flag "saveable" in the process parameter definition?
hengsin: can idempiere-1572 let user choose recently used parameters too ?
tbayen: At the moment it allows _only_ the last choosed parameters. :-(
hengsin: I means recently use can actually be sufficient for many user
hengsin: hmm ... isn't the param is save into ad_pinstance_para for every execution ? I guess we can get it from there ...
tbayen: This is very helpful. If I let my users decide between "default" and "last used" my users would choose "last used". But it is even more better to have a choice.
CarlosRuiz: yep hengsin - it was implemented that way - the only new column is AD_PInstance.Name
tbayen: hengsin, I believe it is taken from there. (It is a time ago when I looked into the code)
CarlosRuiz: I would tend to think that if the parameter has a default and is read-only then it must not be filled with preferences or saved pinstance_para - but with that default
Deepak: Hengsin, it use ad_pinstance_para to save
CarlosRuiz: for example - the "Verify BOM" button on product - the default is the product on screen
red1: Yes CarlosRuiz i made a movie today and checking back indeed the pull down is 3, 1, 2
tbayen: CarlosRuiz, what about a parameter with a default but not read-only? Do we need a "saveable" flag or not?
hengsin: hmm ... I means the ability to fill with parameter value from my recent run of the process without the need for me to say "save it"
CarlosRuiz: it can be changed by user - so I think it makes sense to allow to save a preference
CarlosRuiz: yep hengsin - the list shows the last run + the saved runs
Deepak: Process parameter are going to save on ad_pinstance_para in all the case right now
Deepak: last run is an default option
Deepak: While user can save current parameter with a named set
hengsin: ic. would prefer showing the last 5 with timestamp instead
hengsin: last run is forcing me to remember things, not good :)
Deepak: las run is useful when run same process repetitive with one or 2 parameter changes
Deepak: I will upload patch which respect defaults, and user need to select last run option manually
Deepak: So that will fix one issue
tbayen: Fine! If you need further testing you should support Swing. ;-)
CarlosRuiz: the other advice from tbayen is to not show the box if there are no parameters to save - it makes sense
Deepak: Yes
Deepak: That will be in coming patch
hengsin: deepak, not sure you get me here. I means I would prefer if the list is "31 Jan 2014", "01 Jan 2014" instead of "** Last Run **"
CarlosRuiz: I think we would also need to take care of the "read-only with default" field - better not to bring
Deepak: hensin, It may not good idea
Deepak: as it may show very large list
hengsin: I say above, the last 5
hengsin: or just the last 3 if that's deem too many
hengsin: or it can be configurable using ad_system_config
red1: Now i understand what hengsin meant.. no need to remember when was the last time i worked :D
hengsin: so to say it is too many is not the issue here, plenty of solutions.
tbayen: I like the idea to give a name if you have something that you need later. But the last 3 or five can also be helpful.
red1: "Your last run was more than a year ago"
CarlosRuiz: I saw that on socrate open
CarlosRuiz: is there a pastebin for images to show you?
hengsin: Carlos, you can always upload it to the ticket
Deepak: Hengsin, I understood for last n record
Deepak: But without meaning full name it may not much usefull
CarlosRuiz: http://imagebin.org/295956
hengsin: Deepak, you already implement "** Last Run **". A timestamp is more meaningful to the end user than the "** Last Run **" label
Deepak: Yes, agree
Deepak: but right now ** Last Run ** is not saved instance
Deepak: system pickup latest
CarlosRuiz: I uploaded the image - it shows the time
CarlosRuiz: would be better if it shows the date also
hengsin: Carlos, that looks like another fork :)
CarlosRuiz: ah yes - compiere fork
CarlosRuiz: GWT based
CarlosRuiz: there is another category for open source :-) "obfuscated open source"
hengsin: why "obfuscated open source" ?
CarlosRuiz: not refering to that one specifically
CarlosRuiz: but there are too many open source projects released in a way that is too hard to learn it
CarlosRuiz: not sure if that's the case of socrateopen - but I tried to find sources and failed
tbayen: When I think about it the "last five" functionality is only useful in a situation where I play with the parameters e.g. to find the right setup for my report. Then I sometimes want to go back to what I did some minutes ago. What if we use "the last five that are done in the last thirty minutes"?
CarlosRuiz: at least I was able to take the screenshot :-D
CarlosRuiz: I would think the ad_sysconfig suggested by hengsin is better choice
CarlosRuiz: a process that I run monthly - it would be interesting just to get the parameters from last month and change the date
hengsin: there are many options really. for e.g, you can show last 3 + a links that will show you the full list
Deepak: yes, we can show last n with time stamps
Deepak: I think that will be easy if we make it system configurable
Deepak: or tenant configurable
CarlosRuiz: yep tenant ad_sysconfig sounds better
CarlosRuiz: thanks hieplq and red1 - I liked better how the BOM Drop window is working now
CarlosRuiz: tested dropping bom against a project - it worked fine
Deepak: CarlosRuiz, Do sys config can be overloaded on tenant? I am not sure about this
red1: Highest thanks is to you CarlosRuiz
red1: hieplq is very glad to be in the team
hieplq: @CarlosRuiz I check code. line 461 process order. just don't know why it not order
CarlosRuiz: yes Deepak - ad_sysconfig was designed to be system, tenant or org
CarlosRuiz: the more detailed defined takes precedence
Deepak: Thanks Carlos
CarlosRuiz: you code must use the corresponding parameters - MSysConfig with tenant if you want to allow tenant configurable (same for org)
Deepak: Thomas, work was done for ZK, So attached those flag
CarlosRuiz: hieplq, do you mean line 461 of WBOMDrop?
Deepak: May able to push last n enhancement and swing in next week
hieplq: @CarlosRuiz yes. i will make test data to test it
CarlosRuiz: ok - let me test against an order
CarlosRuiz: in my test here it's working fine with order too
CarlosRuiz: thanks hieplq - the tests on IDEMPIERE-1606 went perfect
hieplq: "Holly Bush" is a product with cost type is "agv invoice" and level is client. when i make a "cost adjustment" i must select a organization. when i complete it. accounting is post to selected organization. it's correct?
red1: .
hieplq: in invoice (vendor). use "Create lines from", i can auto match invoice and PO. but I don't see window, form for manual match invoice and PO.
hieplq: has a window, form for match invoice and PO?
CarlosRuiz: yep
CarlosRuiz: http://wiki.idempiere.org/en/Matching_PO-Receipt-Invoice_(Form_ID-108)
hieplq: I try this window. but when i select "match from" is invoice. "match to" hasn't PO and via
hieplq: vice versa
CarlosRuiz: seems intentional - maybe you must match PO to MR and then MR to IV
hieplq: i see it's not consistent. I can match invoice-po by use "Create lines from", but prohibit at "Matching PO-Receipt-Invoice"
CarlosRuiz: gtg - thanks for the meeting
CarlosRuiz: may the FOSS be with you :-)