Am 07.02.2017 um 18:57 schrieb Cédric Krier: > On 2017-02-07 18:22, Ul wrote: >> >> With a ModelSQL.table_query i can combine the necessary tables basically >> the stock.move and the stock.lot. It would be nice to pull in Infos from >> ShipmentIn and from Production, like the effective date or the supplier, >> but that isn't that important. >> I would add fields.Function as 'parent' and 'childs', that it is >> displayed as a tree not a plain list. > > I do not understand why you will need any Function fields. > You just have to create a Many2Many query table. They were meant for the client. As i understood this is the marker that tells the client to display the records as a tree not a plain list. > >> I see the main Problem in filtering the records to decide witch records >> to show because they belong in this 'in-heritage'-tree. >> My approch would be a loop starting at the 'root'-lot looking up the >> lots that went into the production that produced the root-lot. and doing >> the same with the lots in the result and again with this results until >> every lot in the tree is processed that came out of a production. > > I do not understand what is this "filtering" problem. If I do a SQL-Join with lot and move or if i do join two lots in the manytomany table (that doesn't exist yet), i get infos about all the lots, not just the Lots that are related to my starting lot. The next step is to find the records of interest, and I don't know how to achieve that with the tools i know by now... > >> here is an example how i imagine the output, of course with some more >> columns like product, production-date and so on: >> >> XY >> AB >> GH >> JK >> KL >> WE >> UI >> CD >> WE >> NM > > I do not think it is possible to add random data as column. What do you mean with random data? The Letters were meant to symbolize Lot-Numbers.
> > What I'm talking is that the down/up tree of lots should be a base > feature. > Perhaps i was thinking too narrow, if you implement such an up/down tree based on a many to many relation in the base of tryton, than are many of my points obsolete. I just tried to work with the possibilities that i already know of and look how far i get with them. Building a new base feature sound's like a quite some time till it is usable. So there is the question if i would need a quick-and-dirty solution in between. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tryton" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/a254a0fe-6219-b8ee-1102-092e558fff3f%40gmx.de.
