On 2017-03-09 14:23, Ul wrote:
> Am 09.03.2017 um 13:17 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > On 2017-03-09 12:46, Ul wrote:
> >> My query now looks like:
> >> SELECT (("a"."id" << 5) + "b"."id") AS "id", "a"."create_uid" AS
> >> "create_uid", "a"."create_date" AS "create_date",
> >> "a"."write_uid" AS "write_uid", "a"."write_date" AS
> >> "write_date", "a"."uom" AS "uom", "a"."quantity" AS "quantity",
> >> "a"."lot" AS "from_lot", "b"."lot" AS "to_lot"
> >> FROM "stock_move" AS "a"
> >> INNER JOIN "stock_move" AS "b"
> >> ON ("a"."production_input" = "b"."production_output")
> >> WHERE (("a"."lot" > 0) AND ("b"."lot" > 0))
> >> UNION
> >> SELECT (("a"."id" << 5) + "a"."id") AS "id", "a"."create_uid" AS
> >> "create_uid", "a"."create_date" AS "create_date", "a"."write_uid"
> >> AS "write_uid", "a"."write_date" AS "write_date", "a"."uom" AS
> >> "uom", "a"."quantity" AS "quantity", "a"."supplier_lot" AS
> >> "from_lot", "a"."lot" AS "to_lot"
> >> FROM "stock_move" AS "a"
> >> WHERE (("a"."lot" > 0) AND ("a"."supplier_lot" > 0))
> >
> > I still do not see the point to make an union.
> > Your first select could be just the table of a Many2Many relation and
> > you just show the moves as a tree using this Many2Many.
> If you just follow the lot relations made by production, you are right.
> But as i explained to Sergi, i added a aditional field 'supplier_lot' to
> move, that is filled by shipment in, as i do not want to use the Lot
> numbers of the supplier internally, but of cause have to track my lots
> back to them.
But this could be simply managed by adding the field supplier_lot on the
lot instead of adding a new field on the move.
With that, you stay standard and your view could be integrated in
Tryton.
> > For the unique id, it is pretty simple to generate unique id with fixed
> > number of ids, see model.Union.union_shard.
> I didn't know about yet. Can you tell me where it is used already, to
> see an example?
> My problem with double ids is not about the union, it is mainly from the
> join in the first select-clause, so i don't know if this tool made for
> union is solving it.
Yeps indeed UnionMixin will not work in this case.
Instead a pairing function should work: http://szudzik.com/ElegantPairing.pdf
> > But I think it is good to
> have the tree even if there is not lot.
> I dont see the sense, as i want to see the relations of lots. having a
> move without lot gives no information about a lot, but i need error
> handling for missing attributes.
If you have missing lot for some move, you will still be able to catch
later.
--
Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL
Email/Jabber: [email protected]
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
--
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/20170309142906.GR28339%40tetsuo.
