IDempiere/FullMeeting20140226 - Revision history

CarlosRuiz: drop JIRA notifications from log

2014-02-26T18:04:14Z

drop JIRA notifications from log

CarlosRuiz: full meeting

2014-02-26T18:03:48Z

full meeting

New page

⇐
[[IDempiere|Table of Contents]] |
[[IDempiere/Full Meeting Minutes|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.. 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] deepak created IDEMPIERE-1770 Allowing manual entry from Attributes tab on shipment/MR line 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1770 
'''''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. :-( 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] hengsin updated IDEMPIERE-1550 status set to "Reopened" -resolution set to "None" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] New issues encounter: running process simultaneously at multiple browser tab or window can lead to mixed up of zk desktop access since it is currently store as a session attribute. 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1550 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': about IDEMPIERE-1770 - is the purpose of M_InOutLineMA? I see the M_InOutLineMA is not present on material receipt neither shipment windows 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] hengsin updated IDEMPIERE-1550 Attachment set to "MultipleBrowserTab_Process.patch" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] Test case: open multiple browser tab or window. Run multiple report simultaneously ( sometime it takes a few try to reproduce the problem ) and you will either get a zk error or the report will open in wrong tab/window. 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1550 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] hengsin updated IDEMPIERE-1550 assignee set to "Carlos Antonio Ruiz Gomez" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] Please review latest patch for new issue discover, thanks. 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1550 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] hengsin updated IDEMPIERE-1550 labels set to "+Patch" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1550 
'''''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 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] CarlosRuiz_globalqss pushed 1 commit to release-2.0 [+2/-0/±1] https://bitbucket.org/idempiere/idempiere/commits/ 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] globalqss 85cc1a5 - IDEMPIERE-1613 BOM drop window show error message when click to radio button / integrate patch from hieplq - peer reviewed by red1 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] carlosruiz_globalqss updated IDEMPIERE-1613 status set to "Resolved" -resolution set to "Fixed" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1613 
'''''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 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] deepak updated IDEMPIERE-1572 Attachment set to "9879.patch" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] Patch is attached for ZK. 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1572 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] CarlosRuiz_globalqss pushed 4 commits to release-2.0 [+2/-0/±7] https://bitbucket.org/idempiere/idempiere/commits/ 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] elainetan a51919a - IDEMPIERE-1598 Window Price List Schema - field Discount Type must be Schema Type 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] elainetan 4ec28a6 - IDEMPIERE-1599 Correct naming for acct wildcard dimensions 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] hengsin 112de9b - 1003759 How to re-post a document if Charge type is changed in Product? ( related to IDEMPIERE-216 Average Costing: Zero Costing Item From Vendor but for standard costing ). 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': you code must use the corresponding parameters - MSysConfig with tenant if you want to allow tenant configurable (same for org) 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] hengsin ab31f2a - 1003759 How to re-post a document if Charge type is changed in Product? ( related to IDEMPIERE-216 Average Costing: Zero Costing Item From Vendor but for standard costing ). 
'''''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 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] CarlosRuiz_globalqss pushed 1 commit to release-2.0 [+0/-0/±1] https://bitbucket.org/idempiere/idempiere/commits/ 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] j2garcia af61466 - IDEMPIERE-1769 RMA Line with product and charge 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] carlosruiz_globalqss updated IDEMPIERE-1769 status set to "Resolved" -assignee set to "Jesus Garcia" -resolution set to "Fixed" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1769 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] CarlosRuiz_globalqss pushed 2 commits to release-2.0 [+2/-0/±3] https://bitbucket.org/idempiere/idempiere/commits/ 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] hieplq 78b30e4 - IDEMPIERE-1606 initial client testing > email improvements 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] globalqss dcfd18a - IDEMPIERE-1606 initial client testing > email improvements / fix broken unused swing form 
'''''CarlosRuiz''''': thanks hieplq - the tests on IDEMPIERE-1606 went perfect 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] carlosruiz_globalqss updated IDEMPIERE-1606 status set to "Resolved" -resolution set to "Fixed" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1606 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] CarlosRuiz_globalqss pushed 1 commit to release-2.0 [+0/-0/±1] https://bitbucket.org/idempiere/idempiere/commits/ 
'''''Not-002''''': [iDempiere] globalqss 98e34a0 - IDEMPIERE-1764 Reversing a prepayment messes up the accounting 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] carlosruiz_globalqss updated IDEMPIERE-1764 status set to "Resolved" -assignee set to "Carlos Antonio Ruiz Gomez" -resolution set to "Fixed" 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1764 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] carlosruiz_globalqss updated IDEMPIERE-1550 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] Hi Heng Sin, this test case failed (ubuntu chrome 33.0.1750.117): - open iDempiere session in one tab - right click on the tab and duplicate the tab - on first tab open Sales Order and select an order - on second tab open Purchase Order and select an order - navigate back to first tab and refresh the record - the title of the tab will change to Purchase Order - if you see the context - there is just one window context (seems this is just h 
'''''Not-002''''': [IDEMPIERE] http://idempiere.atlassian.net/browse/IDEMPIERE-1550 
'''''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 :-)

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 '''''red1''''': It was then that i learned the difference between Germany and Austria.<br>
 '''''Deepak''''': good for knowledge, not for work..<br>
 '''''Deepak''''': Hi Carlos<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': Hi Deepak <br>
@@ Line 48: / Line 46: @@
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': but what we thought is that is important to keep starting with the default values - instead of starting with the last saved<br>
 '''''tbayen''''': I work with IDEMPIERE-1572 for some time but I am not happy. :-(<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': about IDEMPIERE-1770 - is the purpose of M_InOutLineMA?  I see the M_InOutLineMA is not present on material receipt neither shipment windows<br>
 '''''Deepak''''': tbayen, did I know reason other then 2 points you reported?<br>
 '''''Deepak''''': CarlosRuiz you are correct about IDEMPIERE-1770, it is about M_InOutLineMA<br>
@@ Line 147: / Line 134: @@
 '''''Deepak''''': or tenant configurable<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': yep tenant ad_sysconfig sounds better<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': thanks hieplq and red1 - I liked better how the BOM Drop window is working now<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': tested dropping bom against a project - it worked fine<br>
@@ Line 160: / Line 143: @@
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': the more detailed defined takes precedence<br>
 '''''Deepak''''': Thanks Carlos<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': you code must use the corresponding parameters - MSysConfig with tenant if you want to allow tenant configurable (same for org)<br>
 '''''Deepak''''': Thomas, work was done for ZK, So attached those flag<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': hieplq, do you mean line 461 of WBOMDrop?<br>
@@ Line 175: / Line 150: @@
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': ok - let me test against an order<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': in my test here it's working fine with order too<br>
 '''''CarlosRuiz''''': thanks hieplq - the tests on IDEMPIERE-1606 went perfect <br>
 '''''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?<br>
 '''''red1''''': .<br>