Re: [tryton-dev] Colors of fields
2015-07-07 0:50 GMT+02:00 Albert Cervera i Areny alb...@nan-tic.com: So here is a screenshot of such invalid form with missing required field and wrong value because of domain. I think it is really an improvement because now we explain to the user what is wrong and experienced user can still anticipate required fields. I agree it is a very good improvement. Indeed it looks rather good, and is very informative ! Jean Cavallo *Coopengo*
Re: [tryton-dev] Colors of fields
2015-07-06 23:36 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier cedric.kr...@b2ck.com: On 2015-07-04 08:58, Cédric Krier wrote: Hi, For now, we put a blue color on entries when they are required (and switch to red when validated as empty). I think it is a bad practice for 2 reasons: - the colors are not custumizable and so they could not work on some thèmes. - it is doesn't help the accessibility [1] as this information is only based on color. So I was thinking instead about adding a * on the labels of the required fields. This still stay quite visual (but not too much) and readable for accessibility. Indeed the '*' solution is not so beautiful. So I worked on an other proposal: - make label bold for required field I think that making the label bold does not solve the problem when a field has no label. Of course, adding * has the same problem. I don't see a better solution than changing the background color. To circumvent the problem with themes or accessibility maybe we could make the color configurable as a client side option. That would not be ideal, but would improve current situation a little bit while not suffering from the mentioned problems. - have a better 'invalid form' message that describe the problem So here is a screenshot of such invalid form with missing required field and wrong value because of domain. I think it is really an improvement because now we explain to the user what is wrong and experienced user can still anticipate required fields. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/ -- Albert Cervera i Areny Tel. 93 553 18 03 @albertnan www.NaN-tic.com
Re: [tryton-dev] Wrong domains in sale/purchase searches in invoices?
On 2015-07-07 20:04, Jordi Esteve wrote:
In sale and purchase modules the functional sales and purchases fields are
defined on invoice model with a searcher method.
If these fields are added in the invoice tree view and we search the
invoices related to the SO001 sale, for example, I get this error SQL error
because the sales id is compared with a string:
ProgrammingError: operator does not exist: integer ~~* unknown
LINE 1: ...e ON (e.id = d.sale) WHERE e.id ILIKE '%SO001
...
^
HINT: No operator matches the given name and argument type(s). You might
need to add explicit type casts.
The problem is the last .id in the domain of the searcher method. Removing
'.id' the search works well:
def search_sales(cls, name, clause):
return [('lines.origin.sale*.id*',) + tuple(clause[1:]) +
('sale.line',)]
Tested in v3.4 but I think v3.6 and trunk have the same behaviour.
Won't fix. You should consider it as the behaviour of this function
field.
--
Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL
Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
Re: [tryton-dev] Colors of fields
On 2015-07-07 22:35, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: 2015-07-06 23:36 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier cedric.kr...@b2ck.com: On 2015-07-04 08:58, Cédric Krier wrote: Hi, For now, we put a blue color on entries when they are required (and switch to red when validated as empty). I think it is a bad practice for 2 reasons: - the colors are not custumizable and so they could not work on some thèmes. - it is doesn't help the accessibility [1] as this information is only based on color. So I was thinking instead about adding a * on the labels of the required fields. This still stay quite visual (but not too much) and readable for accessibility. Indeed the '*' solution is not so beautiful. So I worked on an other proposal: - make label bold for required field I think that making the label bold does not solve the problem when a field has no label. Of course, adding * has the same problem. Indeed for me, this is purly accessory. I added only because I know many of you will cry thinking it is a lost. But in reality, it is realy not needed to have such information. User must encode all the value he knows, then if when he tries to perform an action that requires some missing information, he will be warned (and the focus will be put at the right place) and he will try to find a solution to fill the missing value. Also why required should be a special case compared to other validation like domain, SQL constraint etc. For me, Tryton should have the strictly minimal constraint and thus those constraint should be so obvious that they don't need to be shown. I don't see a better solution than changing the background color. To circumvent the problem with themes or accessibility maybe we could make the color configurable as a client side option. Options are always the poorest answer. That would not be ideal, but would improve current situation a little bit while not suffering from the mentioned problems. Except the application will become more complex, you will have to explain what is the meaning of this option which will not be so easy. Plus it will create a new vector of issues. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
Re: [tryton-dev] Wrong domains in sale/purchase searches in invoices?
On 2015-07-07 23:38, Cédric Krier wrote:
On 2015-07-07 20:04, Jordi Esteve wrote:
In sale and purchase modules the functional sales and purchases fields are
defined on invoice model with a searcher method.
If these fields are added in the invoice tree view and we search the
invoices related to the SO001 sale, for example, I get this error SQL error
because the sales id is compared with a string:
ProgrammingError: operator does not exist: integer ~~* unknown
LINE 1: ...e ON (e.id = d.sale) WHERE e.id ILIKE '%SO001
...
^
HINT: No operator matches the given name and argument type(s). You might
need to add explicit type casts.
The problem is the last .id in the domain of the searcher method. Removing
'.id' the search works well:
def search_sales(cls, name, clause):
return [('lines.origin.sale*.id*',) + tuple(clause[1:]) +
('sale.line',)]
Tested in v3.4 but I think v3.6 and trunk have the same behaviour.
Won't fix. You should consider it as the behaviour of this function
field.
Indeed now, the implementation of the searcher of many2one behaves the
same as the searcher on one2many. So yes, removing the '.id' should
allow to also use string as search value.
--
Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL
Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
Re: [tryton-dev] Colors of fields
On 2015-07-06 23:36, Cédric Krier wrote: On 2015-07-04 08:58, Cédric Krier wrote: Hi, For now, we put a blue color on entries when they are required (and switch to red when validated as empty). I think it is a bad practice for 2 reasons: - the colors are not custumizable and so they could not work on some thèmes. - it is doesn't help the accessibility [1] as this information is only based on color. So I was thinking instead about adding a * on the labels of the required fields. This still stay quite visual (but not too much) and readable for accessibility. Indeed the '*' solution is not so beautiful. So I worked on an other proposal: - make label bold for required field - have a better 'invalid form' message that describe the problem So here is a screenshot of such invalid form with missing required field and wrong value because of domain. I think it is really an improvement because now we explain to the user what is wrong and experienced user can still anticipate required fields. FYI, the feature https://bugs.tryton.org/issue4861 -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
