CarlosRuiz: full meeting

2012-11-28T17:38:03Z

full meeting

New page

⇐
[[IDempiere|Table of Contents]] |
[[IDempiere/Full Meeting Minutes|Full Meeting Minutes]] |
Full Meeting 2012-11-28


'''''CarlosRuiz''''': Good morning 
'''''Deepak''''': Hello Everybody 
'''''a42niem''''': hi all 
'''''nmicoud''''': Bonjour 
'''''nmicoud''''': CarlosRuiz, will you have time to review tickets in queue (with a patch attached) ? 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': yep 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': about IDEMPIERE-480 - did you see the approach from Adaxa? 
'''''nmicoud''''': The approach seems fine. 
'''''nmicoud''''': But, speaking with my accountant, he prefers to allow multiple dates on bank statement 
'''''nmicoud''''': Thus, i would recommend to integrate the patch of Adaxa 
'''''nmicoud''''': and i will modify it for our installs in order to make accountant happy 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': ok 
'''''nmicoud''''': Seems that it would be safer to allow a single date for every document 
'''''a42niem''''': concerning Manufacturing Light 
'''''a42niem''''': it is indeed problematic when there are already entries in table m_production 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': ah yes - Javier reported that - the migration script needs to be fixed 
'''''a42niem''''': well, the additional columns are mandatory but for the already existing lines ther is no correct "default" for them 
'''''a42niem''''': the best fix would be to empty m_production first and then apply migration :-D 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': thinking if we better make those columns nullables - and enable the old production window in read-only mode for these records - and on the new window we can filter out the records with null product 
'''''a42niem''''': yep, good idea 
'''''a42niem''''': maybe we can use mandatory logic to make them mandatory in the new window 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': yes, overwrite mandatory 
'''''a42niem''''': how to proceed? change the existing scripts? or "deprecate" them and create new ones? 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': interesting :-) 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': I think we need both 
'''''a42niem''''': hm, "bug fix" scripts to amend them won't work i guess, they come too late 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': change the existing scripts to drop the "NOT NULL" condition 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': hmmm - thinking 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': what if we write an additional script for people coming from 361 -> 862a_ManufacturingLight.sql.361 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': and we advice people to apply 862a_ManufacturingLight.sql if they have old production records and want to preserve that date 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': data 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': the only difference would be to change the NOT NULL by null on lines 72 and 81 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': :-) or we can make an annotation on the migration script for people coming from 361 
'''''Deepak''''': Annotation for executing failled script manually with suggested changes is good idea. We should consider ant script as it may try to run both script in case of keeping two version 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': and we create a wiki page for "Backward Compatibility Notes" and/or "Migrating from 361 Notes" 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': WDYT a42niem ? 
'''''a42niem''''': good plan, i create a ticket to document it 
'''''a42niem''''': hm, bug or improvement? 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': I think is a migration bug 
'''''a42niem''''': ok 
'''''Edwin_Ang''''': hi 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': Hi Edwin_Ang 
'''''Edwin_Ang''''': hi carlos 
'''''nmicoud''''': hi 
'''''Edwin_Ang''''': what r being discussed? 
'''''Edwin_Ang''''': hi nmicoud 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': not specific discussion at this moment 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': I'm checking peer review queue - and making some MStorage concurrency tests 
'''''a42niem''''': CarlosRuiz: created IDEMPIERE-521, please review 
'''''Edwin_Ang''''': well then, i would like ask about the web services work done by Deepak 
'''''Edwin_Ang''''': can i access the work? 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': Thanks Dirk - looks good 
'''''a42niem''''': . 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': ah Edwin_Ang - Deepak just left - maybe is too late there (he's at Ahmedabad) 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': he's still working on it and I think is going to commit soon 
'''''Edwin_Ang''''': ic 
'''''Edwin_Ang''''': ok no prob 
'''''nmicoud''''': Is there a way, in a M class, to ask something to user, in swing and webUI. 
'''''nmicoud''''': Let's take an example : you want to delete a record ; if some conditions are verified, a 2nd confirmation message should appear 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': I read your thread on red1 forums 
'''''nmicoud''''': But i can only code it using ADialog of FDialog ; is there a common way to do it ? 
'''''nmicoud''''': ah ok :) 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': on 361 you could that trick - because you added the code to customization and that had access to both zk and swing 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': but on idempiere I think that's not so easy - cos zk and swing are independent bundles 
'''''nmicoud''''': i know it is possible in callout, using mTab.fireDataStatusEEvent("",alert,false); but not tested on idempiere 
'''''nmicoud''''': and i would prefer a solution that could be used on idempiere (but if it is also ok for 361, i'll take it) 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': if callout can do the trick - then I would say do it on callout 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': cos is not a strict rule - the user is still allowed to delete on certain conditions - right? 
'''''buildmaster''''': Project iDempiere build #527: SUCCESS in 10 min: http://jenkins.idempiere.com/job/iDempiere/527/ 
'''''buildmaster''''': globalqss: IDEMPIERE-385 Resolve M_Storage locking and data consistency / lock storage record being updated 
'''''nmicoud''''': Yes, but the message should be something like : "Are you really really sure that you want to delete it ?" 
'''''nmicoud''''': He could say "yes" or "no" ; and using a callout, i can only say something, user cannot say yes or no 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': I think I solved a similar situation somewhere forcing the user to check a flag on the window 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': another option is to create a button that deletes the record 
'''''nmicoud''''': to force user to used this button when condition are verified ? 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': yes - on the process you can verify whatever conditions - and force a double check - two flags on parameters :-) 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': or - you can check on delete callout or validator - that the user checked a flag on the window saying "I'm sure to delete this" - kind of that 
'''''nmicoud''''': Yep, i will try this, thanks for the tip 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': nmicoud, I need to move out - thanks a lot for attending these meetings - I appreciate it a lot - you can bring always good things to discuss 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': c u later 
'''''nmicoud''''': bye bye

IDempiere/FullMeeting20121128 - Revision history

CarlosRuiz: full meeting