2014-10-01 9:26 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>:
> On 01 Oct 09:09, Guillem Barba Domingo wrote:
> > El 01/10/2014 0:20, "Cédric Krier" <[email protected]> va escriure:
> > > On 30 Sep 21:32, Jordi Esteve (Zikzakmedia) wrote:
> > It's very common to sometimes need to search a record by a field which is
> > not very common to search by it => it doesn't make sense for
> customer/user
> > to ask a development to its provider (we, the developers) to add this
> field
> > because: a) he need it in that moment b) maybe he don't need to search by
> > this field anymore (but he'll need to search by others non-common
> fields).
> > As this data is in its ERP (an information manageent system), it produces
> > FRUSTRATION.
> > As there isn't a good technical reason to don't allow this, but a
> criteria
> > of what is wrong or desirable in a search, I don't understant why we can
> > discuss to find the better interface to provide this feature.
>
+1
> For example, the search form could have a button ("extended search" or
> > "invisible fields") that shows the searchable fields that there isn't in
> > the tree view.
> > This second search view could have an "alert label" advertising the user
> > that these fields won't be shown in the list.
>
> You are mixing ERP and BI like many of you. Tryton is an “ERP”, it
> manages business processes.
>
No, we don't mix ERP and BI. For BI, we have Babi, for example. Babi
create new views from data (cross data).
We talk to search/filter in current model:
a- a field don't available in tree view
For example, Search/filter parties by two o more categories in Party (party
in [])
a- search in current model and add other condition to other model related:
For example, search all shipments out from yestarday to today and contains
product code "xxxx".
Those conditions, user don't do it to search/find.
IMHO, search filter in Tryton is easy and nice, but not powerfull.
Thanks.
