I think you don't need both, just one will be enough.
Now, about client accounting - yes I've noticed just the document being completed is posted, and all the documents generated from there are not. For example creating a POS order will post the order, but not the shipment, neither the invoice.
I'll try to review this as a bug (because the immediate is not working as immediate - right?)
____________
About flag post immediately in client window I have 2 comments:
in the help states: http://www.adempiere.com/index.php/ManPageW_Client#Window:_Client
If selected, the accouning consequences are immediately generated when completing a doecument. Otherwise the document is posted by a batch process. *You should select this only if you are testing,*
One of our customers enabled such flag - and we found lots of locks in post process on server. Solved when we disabled it.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Ready, now it's posting immediately all documents in all events of Adempiere - at least I tested all I know :-)
The method completeIt() must not be called directly, otherwise the documents won't post immediately. Instead of the program must call processIt(DocAction.ACTION_Complete).
I saw several points in libero and posterita calling directly the completeIt method - but I didn't fix that. Leaving those fixes to corresponding maintainers.
Also, I deprecated the old way for testing AD_Client.IsPostImmediate - those using that functionality (not recommended in help) must migrate to the new way: this is, setting the SysConfig parameter CLIENT_ACCOUNTING to I (from Immediate).
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Ah, by the way, enabling CLIENT_ACCOUNTING you can disable the Accounting Processor, and that will free the server from some CPU cycles :-) That's how I'm configuring new clients.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
>I saw several points in libero and posterita calling directly the
>completeIt method - but I didn't fix that. Leaving those fixes to
>corresponding maintainers.
Hmmm.
Next time module maintainers can say changing module and leaving core to the respective core maintainer
Is this the way to go further?
Trifon
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> Next time module maintainers can say changing module and
> leaving core to the respective core maintainer
Is this the way you say thanks for my bug fixing :-D
If it is, you're welcome.
> Is this the way to go further?
I assumed that I did not need to explain this: I don't have a test scenario for posterita or libero (neither I want to set it up at this moment) - so I preferred to leave those changes to those who have them.
I notified respective maintainers here of my findings, and provided a way to solve it, do you want more?
I'm sure if I kept quiet about the bugs in extensions then you don't come here to blame me.
But my motivation is different - I notified because I want a better core, and I want better extensions also.
But anyways, I guess again this is your way to say "thanks" for the lot of hours I spent fixing and testing this.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I do not want to start flame war, so will leave other questions open.
>I assumed that I did not need to explain this: I don't have a test
>scenario for posterita or libero (neither I want to set it up at this
>moment) - so I preferred to leave those changes to those who have them.
Nobody ask you to make test on this modules. But applying the same changes which are done on the core should be done on the modules too.
You are initiator of the changes so you know the main idea of making the change, means it is more easy for you to make the change.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> I do not want to start flame war, so will leave other questions open.
Where are the flames? I just see a grateful man saying thanks in a strange way.
Since when I owe you maintenance of posterita? Just imagine in future we have 100 extensions (that's the future I dream with OSGi) - so - for every change in core I need to review those 100 extensions :-) Man, you're blaming the wrong person.
I guess you felt attacked because you promised to be the posterita maintainer (what I haven't seen) and because I have asked in past to remove posterita from trunk and move it to extensions or contributions (and I'll keep proposing that).
But, anyways - again, you're welcome - I did these changes and I appreciate your words of gratitude :-)
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Ah, by the way you raised a good point to discuss about "Best Practices" - I always try to get the best from anything ;-)
It's about this:
> Nobody ask you to make test on this modules. But applying the
> same changes which are done on the core should be done on
> the modules too. You are initiator of the changes so you know
> the main idea of making the change, means it is more easy for
> you to make the change
Normally I don't apply changes in release, experimental trunk or any branch if I don't test them first. IMHO that's to show respect for others - I cannot assume anybody will test or fix if I break that.
You can check in several trackers I attach patches to solve the problem, and maybe you have asked yourself why I don't commit it directly.
Well - it's because of this - I don't commit things that I have not tested (with very rare exceptions changing very minor things).
In this case I didn't contribute also a patch because I don't feel obliged to (as I explained before, just imagine when we have 100 extensions). But I notified and proposed a solution - what is by large most than most people do here - including you that refused to revert an untested thing you committed and broke functionality.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
you are mixing things.
At this moment ADempiere do not have good extensions.
Because all of them require some core code change.
Posterita and Manufacturing are just functional parts.
The whole Idea to have them in ADempiere SVN Server and as part of trunk is to be able to evolve them with the same speed as other parts evolve. Else we just loose this functionality.
Do you see my point now?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi Steven, you're welcome. This is a functionality I added in 3.5.4 and I really like it (that's my interest in fixing any issue) because:
1 - it enable the accountant to work without calling IT
2 - doing immediate post keep the accounting on line, allowing immediate review of indicators.
3 - it enable Adempiere to work totally stand-alone without needing a server
So, I'll be glad to see more suggestions about how to improve it.
_________________________________
@Trifon, you really damaged my mood this morning.
The answers I expect for the bug fixing I'm conducting are:
* From developers -> peer review of code, and tests if possible
* From functionals -> test and report success or failure
*Constructive answers*
I didn't expect anybody blaming me because I didn't do his/her work.
We have very different points of view about posterita and libero as extensions. And we have stated such different points of view every time we post here - or anytime we meet (as in Berlin).
We have very different points of view about core maintenance vs extensions maintenance.
We have very different visions about extensibility.
I have total respect for your different vision - but I don't accept you try to impose me to maintain two modules that must be maintained as extensions:
- one of them (posterita) almost abandoned by his supposed maintainer, and the original contributors going closed source
- and the other extension (libero) really slow to review or integrate contributions from community, or to review problems about interaction with trunk
And - to support even more my actions - I repeat that I consider irresponsible and disrespectful when somebody commit code without testings - compelling others to work or revert.
I hate such behavior, so I keep avoiding it - I just commit things that I'm sure I tested. And notify to others via patches to others when I don't have the time or scenario to test.
And I recommend to you and all developers to do the same.
If a "best practice" is understood by more developers because of this minor discussion - then I'll be happy with this.
Otherwise I'll just turn on my noise filter and ignore the blames about my "lack of extension maintenance".
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
yes, we have different vision and understanding.
I appreciate all your effort and i do not discuss this. Please read that i have comment action which you have made.
My reason behind my comment is that If we update all source codes then ADempiere stays consistent.
I'm not sure what you understand by module but as i wrote ADempiere still do not have real modules. What means module if you need to change core and if change in the core need module to be changed?
Do you see my point?
I agree that module maintainers have to test their respective functionality, but hope you can understand my point that you as original source of the change have deeper knowledge and is easier and faster for you to introduce the change all over the code?
I'm i wrong or right?
And by doing the change you can ask them to test.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Trifon - posterita is not core.
Indeed I doubt it's working at this moment in Adempiere, anybody using it in production (out of the box / without modifications) ?
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
>Indeed I doubt it's working at this moment in Adempiere, anybody using it
>in production (out of the box / without modifications) ?
I do not have users. I'm not sure if there are production users.
But again, this is not my point.
What i'm trying to tell you is that ADempeire still do not have modules. If a change in core leads to need to change module then interface between both is not well defined and is better to keep both together and modify them at the same time, else you end with non working system.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by
the administrator of this Tracker).
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi Adaxa,
Which auto-posting?
Client accounting sysconfig set to immediate?
or the flag on client window? (this last must not be used in production, just for testing)
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
"Client accounting sysconfig set to immediate?" ..... Yes and Config level = Client.
"or the flag on client window? (this last must not be used in production,
just for testing)" .... is set to Y and am using it in production :-(
Hi Adaxa,
I think you don't need both, just one will be enough.
Now, about client accounting - yes I've noticed just the document being completed is posted, and all the documents generated from there are not. For example creating a POS order will post the order, but not the shipment, neither the invoice.
I'll try to review this as a bug (because the immediate is not working as immediate - right?)
____________
About flag post immediately in client window I have 2 comments:
in the help states:
http://www.adempiere.com/index.php/ManPageW_Client#Window:_Client
If selected, the accouning consequences are immediately generated when completing a doecument. Otherwise the document is posted by a batch process. *You should select this only if you are testing,*
One of our customers enabled such flag - and we found lots of locks in post process on server. Solved when we disabled it.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Committed revision 11658.
http://adempiere.svn.sourceforge.net/adempiere/?rev=11658&view=rev
Ready, now it's posting immediately all documents in all events of Adempiere - at least I tested all I know :-)
The method completeIt() must not be called directly, otherwise the documents won't post immediately. Instead of the program must call processIt(DocAction.ACTION_Complete).
I saw several points in libero and posterita calling directly the completeIt method - but I didn't fix that. Leaving those fixes to corresponding maintainers.
Also, I deprecated the old way for testing AD_Client.IsPostImmediate - those using that functionality (not recommended in help) must migrate to the new way: this is, setting the SysConfig parameter CLIENT_ACCOUNTING to I (from Immediate).
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Ah, by the way, enabling CLIENT_ACCOUNTING you can disable the Accounting Processor, and that will free the server from some CPU cycles :-) That's how I'm configuring new clients.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Hi Carlos,
>I saw several points in libero and posterita calling directly the
>completeIt method - but I didn't fix that. Leaving those fixes to
>corresponding maintainers.
Hmmm.
Next time module maintainers can say changing module and leaving core to the respective core maintainer
Is this the way to go further?
Trifon
Trifon,
> Next time module maintainers can say changing module and
> leaving core to the respective core maintainer
Is this the way you say thanks for my bug fixing :-D
If it is, you're welcome.
> Is this the way to go further?
I assumed that I did not need to explain this: I don't have a test scenario for posterita or libero (neither I want to set it up at this moment) - so I preferred to leave those changes to those who have them.
I notified respective maintainers here of my findings, and provided a way to solve it, do you want more?
I'm sure if I kept quiet about the bugs in extensions then you don't come here to blame me.
But my motivation is different - I notified because I want a better core, and I want better extensions also.
But anyways, I guess again this is your way to say "thanks" for the lot of hours I spent fixing and testing this.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Carlos,
I do not want to start flame war, so will leave other questions open.
>I assumed that I did not need to explain this: I don't have a test
>scenario for posterita or libero (neither I want to set it up at this
>moment) - so I preferred to leave those changes to those who have them.
Nobody ask you to make test on this modules. But applying the same changes which are done on the core should be done on the modules too.
You are initiator of the changes so you know the main idea of making the change, means it is more easy for you to make the change.
> I do not want to start flame war, so will leave other questions open.
Where are the flames? I just see a grateful man saying thanks in a strange way.
Since when I owe you maintenance of posterita? Just imagine in future we have 100 extensions (that's the future I dream with OSGi) - so - for every change in core I need to review those 100 extensions :-) Man, you're blaming the wrong person.
I guess you felt attacked because you promised to be the posterita maintainer (what I haven't seen) and because I have asked in past to remove posterita from trunk and move it to extensions or contributions (and I'll keep proposing that).
But, anyways - again, you're welcome - I did these changes and I appreciate your words of gratitude :-)
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Ah, by the way you raised a good point to discuss about "Best Practices" - I always try to get the best from anything ;-)
It's about this:
> Nobody ask you to make test on this modules. But applying the
> same changes which are done on the core should be done on
> the modules too. You are initiator of the changes so you know
> the main idea of making the change, means it is more easy for
> you to make the change
Normally I don't apply changes in release, experimental trunk or any branch if I don't test them first. IMHO that's to show respect for others - I cannot assume anybody will test or fix if I break that.
You can check in several trackers I attach patches to solve the problem, and maybe you have asked yourself why I don't commit it directly.
Well - it's because of this - I don't commit things that I have not tested (with very rare exceptions changing very minor things).
In this case I didn't contribute also a patch because I don't feel obliged to (as I explained before, just imagine when we have 100 extensions). But I notified and proposed a solution - what is by large most than most people do here - including you that refused to revert an untested thing you committed and broke functionality.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Carlos,
you are mixing things.
At this moment ADempiere do not have good extensions.
Because all of them require some core code change.
Posterita and Manufacturing are just functional parts.
The whole Idea to have them in ADempiere SVN Server and as part of trunk is to be able to evolve them with the same speed as other parts evolve. Else we just loose this functionality.
Do you see my point now?
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for the fix and the guidance on not using the post immediate flag.
regards
Steven
Hi Steven, you're welcome. This is a functionality I added in 3.5.4 and I really like it (that's my interest in fixing any issue) because:
1 - it enable the accountant to work without calling IT
2 - doing immediate post keep the accounting on line, allowing immediate review of indicators.
3 - it enable Adempiere to work totally stand-alone without needing a server
So, I'll be glad to see more suggestions about how to improve it.
_________________________________
@Trifon, you really damaged my mood this morning.
The answers I expect for the bug fixing I'm conducting are:
* From developers -> peer review of code, and tests if possible
* From functionals -> test and report success or failure
*Constructive answers*
I didn't expect anybody blaming me because I didn't do his/her work.
We have very different points of view about posterita and libero as extensions. And we have stated such different points of view every time we post here - or anytime we meet (as in Berlin).
We have very different points of view about core maintenance vs extensions maintenance.
We have very different visions about extensibility.
I have total respect for your different vision - but I don't accept you try to impose me to maintain two modules that must be maintained as extensions:
- one of them (posterita) almost abandoned by his supposed maintainer, and the original contributors going closed source
- and the other extension (libero) really slow to review or integrate contributions from community, or to review problems about interaction with trunk
And - to support even more my actions - I repeat that I consider irresponsible and disrespectful when somebody commit code without testings - compelling others to work or revert.
I hate such behavior, so I keep avoiding it - I just commit things that I'm sure I tested. And notify to others via patches to others when I don't have the time or scenario to test.
And I recommend to you and all developers to do the same.
If a "best practice" is understood by more developers because of this minor discussion - then I'll be happy with this.
Otherwise I'll just turn on my noise filter and ignore the blames about my "lack of extension maintenance".
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Carlos,
yes, we have different vision and understanding.
I appreciate all your effort and i do not discuss this. Please read that i have comment action which you have made.
My reason behind my comment is that If we update all source codes then ADempiere stays consistent.
I'm not sure what you understand by module but as i wrote ADempiere still do not have real modules. What means module if you need to change core and if change in the core need module to be changed?
Do you see my point?
I agree that module maintainers have to test their respective functionality, but hope you can understand my point that you as original source of the change have deeper knowledge and is easier and faster for you to introduce the change all over the code?
I'm i wrong or right?
And by doing the change you can ask them to test.
Trifon - posterita is not core.
Indeed I doubt it's working at this moment in Adempiere, anybody using it in production (out of the box / without modifications) ?
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
Carlos,
>Indeed I doubt it's working at this moment in Adempiere, anybody using it
>in production (out of the box / without modifications) ?
I do not have users. I'm not sure if there are production users.
But again, this is not my point.
What i'm trying to tell you is that ADempeire still do not have modules. If a change in core leads to need to change module then interface between both is not well defined and is better to keep both together and modify them at the same time, else you end with non working system.
Trifon - posterita is not core.
Regards,
Carlos Ruiz
arrived to /release with revision 11665
This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was
previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter
did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by
the administrator of this Tracker).