web-erp-developers — Discussion on development of webERP

Re: [WebERP-developers] Testing Tims weberpafrica.com email

[opto <bu...@op...>]

Tim Schofield-4 wrote
> (No, this email's not real, it's http://deadfake.com) If this email
> arrives in the web-erp-developers list then this is further evidence that
> Tim has no regard for the truth. It has been sent using the dead fake
> email spoofing web-interface.  
> 
> I reported Tim ........
> ....
> 
> Phil Daintree


why should that be evidence.... ??? Of what?

I am really interested to understand who is nailing whom. So please explain
what you mean, Phil - if you have written this.

Or? The post has been sent by Tim, and Phil put some extra text in it? Or
the post has been sent by Phil, but if you want to expose Tim's accountant
stuff, why the strange subject line?
Or the post is total spoof and not related to any of you two?

And my deeper concern: How can I justify to use this software in my company
if the team seems to explode every two months? When do I have to expect the
final end? Can I afford to  use weberp in my company?

Klaus



--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Testing-Tims-weberpafrica-com-email-tp4656640p4656641.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[WebERP-developers] Testing Tims weberpafrica.com email

[<ti...@we...>]

(No, this email's not real, it's http://deadfake.com)<br/><br/>If this email arrives in the web-erp-developers list then this is further evidence that Tim has no regard for the truth. It has been sent using the dead fake email spoofing web-interface.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
I reported Tim and my dispute to the institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, who expect high standards of ethical behaviour of members, only to be advised that Tim never has been a member. I am afraid that for several years he was advertised to be a Chartered Accountant on the webERP web-site. I apologise for my part in this deception. Please be advised this is another untruth - he is NOT a Chartered Accountant and never was.<br />
<br />
Phil Daintree

[WebERP-developers] Field sizes in SelectOrderItems.php

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Hi all:

Last SVN SelectOrderItems.php file, has modfied the size of fields. Now
Item descriptio, Quantity and Price have the same size (at least with
aguapop theme).
Also price appears empty.

Probably has something to do with this HTML 5 changes

Regards,
Ricard

Re: [WebERP-developers] VAT identification number as Customer-code and Supplier-code. Experience?

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Hi Rafael,

There are separate fields for this in both those tables.

IRD number is potentially  11 chars in NZ.
In Australia  ABN is a unique 11 digit identifier
Looks like longest is 12 char on this list - plus 3 chars for country code = 15

http://www.tmf-vat.com/vat/eu-vat-number-formats.html
<http://www.tmf-vat.com/vat/eu-vat-number-formats.html>

Phil

Ph: +64 (0)275 567890
Skype: daintree
http://www.logicworks.co.nz

On 22 July 2013 at 17:05 webERP Developers
<web...@li...> wrote:

>  Hi,
> 
>  This is a question about your experience. I explain myself:
> 
>  Due a particular situation, I have to use the tax/vat identification number
> as the client_code (debtorsmaster.debtorno) and the supplier_code
> (suppliers.supplierid).
> 
>  The biggest VAT identification number --as far I know-- is 17 characters (= 2
> characters for the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 code + 15 characters for the local VAT
> identification number). See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT_identification_number
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT_identification_number> .
> 
>  * Anyone knows a tax/vat identification number greater than that indicated in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT_identification_number
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT_identification_number> ?
> 
>  * Who of you have used the VAT number as the customer or supplier number ?
> Comments ?
> 
>  Regards,
> 
>  Rafael Chacón
>  ---
>  Note: Columns involved in changing size from varchar(10) to varchar(17):
> contracts.debtorno; custbranch.debtorno; custcontacts.debtorno;
> custnotes.debtorno; debtorsmaster.debtorno; debtortrans.debtorno;
> offers.supplierid; orderdeliverydifferenceslog.debtorno; prices.debtorno;
> purchdata.supplierno; purchorders.supplierno; recurringsalesorders.debtorno;
> salesorders.debtorno; sellthroughsupport.debtorno; shipments.supplierid;
> stockmoves.debtorno; suppliercontacts.supplierid;
> supplierdiscounts.supplierno; suppliers.supplierid; supptrans.supplierno.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
>  Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
>  Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
>  Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> 
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk_______________________________________________
>  Web-erp-developers mailing list
>  Web...@li...
>  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> 

[WebERP-developers] VAT identification number as Customer-code and Supplier-code. Experience?

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Hi,

This is a question about your experience. I explain myself:

Due a particular situation, I have to use the tax/vat identification number
as the client_code (debtorsmaster.debtorno) and the supplier_code
(suppliers.supplierid).

The biggest VAT identification number --as far I know-- is 17 characters (=
2 characters for the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 code + 15 characters for the local
VAT identification number). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT_identification_number.

* Anyone knows a tax/vat identification number greater than that indicated
in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT_identification_number ?

* Who of you have used the VAT number as the customer or supplier number ?
Comments ?

Regards,

Rafael Chacón
---
Note: Columns involved in changing size from varchar(10) to varchar(17):
contracts.debtorno; custbranch.debtorno; custcontacts.debtorno;
custnotes.debtorno; debtorsmaster.debtorno; debtortrans.debtorno;
offers.supplierid; orderdeliverydifferenceslog.debtorno; prices.debtorno;
purchdata.supplierno; purchorders.supplierno;
recurringsalesorders.debtorno; salesorders.debtorno;
sellthroughsupport.debtorno; shipments.supplierid; stockmoves.debtorno;
suppliercontacts.supplierid; supplierdiscounts.supplierno;
suppliers.supplierid; supptrans.supplierno.

Re: [WebERP-developers] Correct field size for customer branches

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Hi Rafael:

My bad, sorry. I confused you because I committed the SQL change but not
the script change.

Now committed and (as far as I understand it), SQL and script are in sync.

Regards,
Ricard


2013/7/22 webERP Developers <web...@li...>

> Hi Ricard,
>
> I did not know about changes of the size of these fields few days ago. I
> did the changes because I have problems caused by the different size of
> "maxsize" and "varchar" of columns "address-5" of tables locations,
> debtors, suppliers, custbranch and custbranch (postal address) --e.g. the
> data exchanged with other software is truncated when someone edit them with
> CustomerBranches.php--. As my solution to this, I limited the size of
> imported/exported data for this column "address-5" to 40 characters.
>
> Please, feel free to roll-back those changes.
>
> Regards, Rafael.
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/21 webERP Developers <web...@li...>
>
>> Hi Rafael:
>>
>> I saw you committed some changes at CustomerBranches.php script (rev.
>> 6131 and 32).
>>
>> I changed the size of these fields few days ago, to be consistent with
>> all other customer address fields in webERP. SQL ALTER sentences are at
>> lines 176 -178 of the upgrade file.
>>
>> Is there anything I missed that we should go back to the previous
>> situation? Please check and let us know.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ricard
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
>> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
>> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
>> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web-erp-developers mailing list
>> Web...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>

Re: [WebERP-developers] Correct field size for customer branches

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Hi Ricard,

I did not know about changes of the size of these fields few days ago. I
did the changes because I have problems caused by the different size of
"maxsize" and "varchar" of columns "address-5" of tables locations,
debtors, suppliers, custbranch and custbranch (postal address) --e.g. the
data exchanged with other software is truncated when someone edit them with
CustomerBranches.php--. As my solution to this, I limited the size of
imported/exported data for this column "address-5" to 40 characters.

Please, feel free to roll-back those changes.

Regards, Rafael.




2013/7/21 webERP Developers <web...@li...>

> Hi Rafael:
>
> I saw you committed some changes at CustomerBranches.php script (rev. 6131
> and 32).
>
> I changed the size of these fields few days ago, to be consistent with all
> other customer address fields in webERP. SQL ALTER sentences are at lines
> 176 -178 of the upgrade file.
>
> Is there anything I missed that we should go back to the previous
> situation? Please check and let us know.
>
> Regards,
> Ricard
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>

[WebERP-developers] Correct field size for customer branches

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Hi Rafael:

I saw you committed some changes at CustomerBranches.php script (rev. 6131
and 32).

I changed the size of these fields few days ago, to be consistent with all
other customer address fields in webERP. SQL ALTER sentences are at lines
176 -178 of the upgrade file.

Is there anything I missed that we should go back to the previous
situation? Please check and let us know.

Regards,
Ricard

Re: [WebERP-developers] Table sort

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Brilliant thanks Exson/Thumb and Tim :-)

Phil

Phil Daintree
Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
http://www.logicworks.co.nz
skype:daintree


On 20/07/13 05:25, webERP Developers wrote:
> *Hi,Phil:*
>
>             Thank you for your hard working!
>
>             My colleague Thumb has pin point the problem. The most simplest
> way to solve this problem is to comment out SelectProduct.php at line 809.
>
>             Problem is that Tim's function only check the first table head,
> then all of the following code only assume that all of them are td.
>
>             We' provide a fix asap.
>
>             Thanks and best regards!
>
>             Exson
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Table-sort-tp4656620p4656623.html
> Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>

Re: [WebERP-developers] Table sort

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

*Hi,Phil:*

           Thank you for your hard working!

           My colleague Thumb has pin point the problem. The most simplest
way to solve this problem is to comment out SelectProduct.php at line 809. 

           Problem is that Tim's function only check the first table head,
then all of the following code only assume that all of them are td.

           We' provide a fix asap.

           Thanks and best regards!

           Exson



--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Table-sort-tp4656620p4656623.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[WebERP-developers] Table sort

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    I am trying to get Tim's table sorting going... but struggling. I am
    committing what I have - I have just taken some bits of Tim's
    javascript file but can't quite see what I've missed. Appreciate any
    pointers.<br>
    <br>
    See attached.<br>
    <br>
    <img src="cid:par...@lo..." alt=""><br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Phil

Phil Daintree
Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.logicworks.co.nz">http://www.logicworks.co.nz</a>
skype:daintree</pre>
  </body>
</html>

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Yes - I've been using pattern="[0-9a-zA-Z_]*" to prevent input of dodgy
characters
see  http://www.weberp.org/wiki/TransitionToHtml5
<http://www.weberp.org/wiki/TransitionToHtml5>
I am sure there are plenty of other places this should be used too - I noticed
your nice use of  pattern=".{4,}" to ensure the text entered is at least 4
characters long.
You are obviously much better with regular expressions than I am.



On 19 July 2013 at 15:46 webERP Developers
<web...@li...> wrote:
> *Hi, Phil:*
>
> I've tried to revise some scripts to meet html5 standard and found
> the spec should be revised:
>
> 1) There are illegal characters not allowed in server side. I think
> this should be verified before the data send to server, otherwise, users
> will be frustrated.
> 2) There are special string not allowed such as 'admin' in
> WWW_Users.php, I think this string should be checked too.
> Not sure if there are others which proceed in server side only.
>
> Just my2cent.
>
> Best regards!
>
> Exson
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656618.html
> Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
Phil

Ph: +64 (0)275 567890
Skype: daintree
http://www.logicworks.co.nz

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

*Hi, Phil:*

       I've tried to revise some scripts to meet html5 standard and found
the spec should be revised:

       1) There are illegal characters not allowed in server side. I think
this should be verified before the data send to server, otherwise, users
will be frustrated.
       2) There are special string not allowed such as 'admin' in
WWW_Users.php, I think this string should be checked too.
       Not sure if there are others which proceed in server side only.

      Just my2cent.

      Best regards!

      Exson




--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656618.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

*Hi, Tim:*

         Thank you for your feedback. I've got it.

         It's moved to body now.

         Best regards!

         Exson

TimSchofield2 wrote
> Hi Exson,
> ExsonQu wrote
>>  a hidden field is created to hold the Lang variable. 
> No, the html still gets output to the browser with the Lang variable
> before the html headers are sent.
> 
> Nothing can be sent before this:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> 			"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> which is sent in header.inc, which is why header.inc is the place for this
> code.
> 
> Do a Ctr-U to see the source html and you will see what I mean.
> 
> Thanks
> Tim





--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656614.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

*Hi, Tim:*

           Thank you for your comments!

           I've fixed it now. The negative mark is allowed for input and a
hidden field is created to hold the Lang variable. 

          Thank you again.

          Best regards!

          Exson


TimSchofield2 wrote
> 
> ExsonQu wrote
*
>> Dear all:
*
>> 
>>           I've revised validation of number class features based on Tim's
>> job. 
>>           1) In step1, users cannot input ',. ' on a row. 
>>           2) an onchange function was added to validate user's input via
>> their locale. 
>> 
>>         I've commit these changes to svn. 
>> 
>>         Any comments are highly appreciated!
>> 
>>         Thank you for the help from all of you!
>> 
>>         Best regards!
>> 
>>         Exson
> Hi Exson,
> 
> This is great work.
> 
> A couple of pointers. I think you have accidentally removed the ability to
> put in negative numbers. In the rTN() function, the string should read
> ("0123456789.,-").
> 
> Secondly By using LanguageSetup.php to create the JavaScript variable Lang
> you are outputting the script before the headers. By looking at the
> generated html you will see this:

> 

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> 			"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> <head>
> This will mean that all reports will refuse to run, and also has some
> undesirable UI affects, (you will probably notice that the fonts have
> grown!).
> 
> This code is better placed in header.inc just before MiscFunctions.js gets
> included.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Tim





--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656612.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

*Dear all:*

          I've revised validation of number class features based on Tim's
job. 
          1) In step1, users cannot input ',. ' on a row. 
          2) an onchange function was added to validate user's input via
their locale. 

        I've commit these changes to svn. 

        Any comments are highly appreciated!

        Thank you for the help from all of you!

        Best regards!

        Exson





--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656608.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

> reduce the work of the transition. But there are still space to improve the
> js function to make it more precisely to trap error corresponding to user's
> locale. I'll make a try.

That sounds great :-) I do believe this is the best avenue to try for
improvement.

> The html5's local storage feature maybe give us more choice
> without jq's data table.

Sounds like I should be looking at this too then.

Thanks for all your efforts Exson :-)

Phil

On 18 July 2013 at 11:00 webERP Developers
<web...@li...> wrote:
> *Hi, Phil:*
>
> Thank you for your explanation.
> I agreed that the pattern I submit did little improvement and the
> pattern should not be used in the html file. And it will significantly
> reduce the work of the transition. But there are still space to improve the
> js function to make it more precisely to trap error corresponding to user's
> locale. I'll make a try.
>
> The html5's local storage feature maybe give us more choice
> without jq's data table.
>
> Thanks and best regards!
>
> Exson
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656605.html
> Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
Phil

Ph: +64 (0)275 567890
Skype: daintree
http://www.logicworks.co.nz

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

*Hi, Phil:*

           Thank you for your explanation. 
           I agreed that the pattern I submit did little improvement and the
pattern should not be used in the html file. And it will significantly
reduce the work of the transition. But there are still space to improve the
js function to make it more precisely to trap error corresponding to user's
locale. I'll make a try. 

          The html5's local storage feature maybe give us more choice
without jq's data table. 
          
          Thanks and best regards!

          Exson



--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656605.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

if you have a stock of 1.000000 items - no matter how long your page is,
unless you decide to display only 20, which would seem unpractical:

can you still notice differences of 30 bytes of javascript in the
bandwidthand in page loading time? Especially if the js might be cached?
Won't it be faster if sorting and others things are done in the browser as
compared to reloading a sorted page - needing twice the bandwidth?

How many bytes are 30 lines of items in a table? More/less than jquery code,
which is 70 kB?

Won't the data be much larger than any of the code that could make the page
more usable?

Datatables could be used on top of your pagination, so it would only show
and load the number of lines that is given in the config.

It also allows to resort clumn ordering, to save that ordering locally, to
hide colums, and eventually, some tables should have in table edit
capability to improve usage.



--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656604.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Hello icedlava,

Well my thinking was that we want the improved error trapping and the table
sorting that jQuery offers... However, as Exson pointed out even IE has HTML5
compliance to a large extent these days and HTML5 offers much of the
functionality of the jQuery validation plugin without nary a jot of local
javascript.... it just seems a no brainer to use HTML5 for validation - there is
a super fall back as always to our old PHP code when there is no HTML5
compatibility.
Also, the traps that Tim did with the javascript number class remain - so only
[0-0,.-] can be entered in input fields with class="number"
Where we need to trap the number of characters or prevent "dodgy" characters ...
we can use html5's pattern. Exson and I have researched the use of pattern to
trap number input and we were considering using pattern but the pattern required
is so long and the additional trap it provides is minimal compared to the
class="number" we already have. I've decided not to go with pattern for number
input. Also html5 <input type="number" is a non-starter as it does not handle
inputs in different locale formats correctly - we could accommodate the number
of decimal places with a step="1 x 10^-X" decimal places but the locale format
issue has no easy solution so <input = "text" it is as I see it with
class="number" or class="integer" where the javascript handles the trapping.

So we are left only with the table sorting. The only problem I have with that is
that when we have a stock result of over 1,000,000 rows - my thinking is that
most people irrespective of their connection will prefer the paging we have
currently which limits the result set and allows paging through it or
resubmission of a more sensible search criteria. Table sorting should be on the
returned results only. Tim has added a nice javascript solution in our tiny
MiscFunctions.js file within the 6k or so and this is substantially below the
sum of the jQuery main, jQuery validation plugin and the jQuery table sorting
plugin - which when you add up the total javascript downloads altogether, they
really are too heavy IMHO for what is an application that has always aimed to be
usable over low bandwidth connections. With HTML5 validation and Tim's tiny
javascript file, performance will remain SNAPPY and the GUI/useability much
improved.

Using the solution described here I think we retain the low footprint and gain
the functionality to dramatically improve the user experience. I am half way
through it - see  http://www.weberp.org/wiki/TransitionToHtml5
<http://www.weberp.org/wiki/TransitionToHtml5>

Hope this explains the rationale behind my decisions so far. Please do let me
know if I have overlooked anything !

Thanks
Phil

On 18 July 2013 at 00:48 webERP Developers
<web...@li...> wrote:
> I think that the move to use of HTML5 is a good idea, keeping in mind that
> there maybe many users on browsers that do not support some aspects of HTML5.
>
> However I agree also with Klaus that Jquery is small overhead for the
> additional benefits it can bring. JQuery plugins can still provide behaviours
> that HTML5 cannot, and they complement each other - one does not preclude the
> other.
>
> I also agree that UI improvements are needed in webERP, and Unobtrusive usage
> of jQuery in the UI could help in this area, and boost webERP usage. I guess
> if it is used we need to think very carefully about what plugins should become
> part of weberp distribution.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On 17/07/2013, at 9:59 PM, webERP Developers
> <web...@li...> wrote:
>
> > I am somewhat sorry to read that you do not want to use jquery and other
> > plugins.
> >
> > In addition (or except if done by html 5) to validation, better table
> > handling, drag and drop etc would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > I do not really think the extra burden would be big: jquery min is 90 kb,
> > datatables 70 kb - I don't think these extra transfer volumes will give more
> > inefficiency - than the gain in UI experuience will boost the use of the
> > system.
> >
> > Klaus
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656597.html
> > Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> > Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> > Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> > Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
Phil

Ph: +64 (0)275 567890
Skype: daintree
http://www.logicworks.co.nz

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

I think that the move to use of HTML5 is a good idea, keeping in mind that there maybe many users on browsers that do not support some aspects of HTML5.

However I agree also with Klaus that Jquery is small overhead for the additional benefits it can bring. JQuery plugins can still provide behaviours that HTML5 cannot, and they complement each other - one does not preclude the other.

I also agree that UI improvements are needed in webERP, and Unobtrusive usage of jQuery in the UI could help in this area, and boost webERP usage. I guess if it is used we need to think very carefully about what plugins should become part of weberp distribution. 

Cheers,



On 17/07/2013, at 9:59 PM, webERP Developers <web...@li...> wrote:

> I am somewhat sorry to read that you do not want to use jquery and other
> plugins.
> 
> In addition (or except if done by html 5) to validation, better table
> handling, drag and drop etc would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> I do not really think the extra burden would be big: jquery min is 90 kb,
> datatables 70 kb - I don't think these extra transfer volumes will give more
> inefficiency  - than the gain in UI experuience will boost the use of the
> system.
> 
> Klaus
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656597.html
> Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [WebERP-developers] Transition to HTML 5

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

I am somewhat sorry to read that you do not want to use jquery and other
plugins.

In addition (or except if done by html 5) to validation, better table
handling, drag and drop etc would be greatly appreciated.

I do not really think the extra burden would be big: jquery min is 90 kb,
datatables 70 kb - I don't think these extra transfer volumes will give more
inefficiency  - than the gain in UI experuience will boost the use of the
system.

Klaus



--
View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656597.html
Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [WebERP-developers] pattern to match numbers

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Sorry - no it looks like it works too for comma as decimal separator. 
But it is too general to give us any more than we already have with the 
javascript and so not worth doing IMHO.

Phil

Phil Daintree
Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
http://www.logicworks.co.nz
skype:daintree


On 17/07/13 22:41, webERP Developers wrote:
> It would fail for European locales with a comma as a decimal point.
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Daintree
> Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
> http://www.logicworks.co.nz
> skype:daintree
>
>
> On 17/07/13 22:26, webERP Developers wrote:
>> Well the pattern we use will have to be different depending on:
>>
>> a) the user's locale
>> b) the number of decimal places that are allowed
>>
>>
>> so
>> pattern="(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\.?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:,?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{,
>> })?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^(\d{1,2},)?(\d{2},)*(\d{3})(\.\d+)?|(\d{1,3})(\.\d+)?$)"
>>
>>
>> is a bit of a kludge and a very long one that really doesn't check
>> accurately the number format in any event as it doesn't take into
>> account the actual number format particular to the locale nor the number
>> of decimal places allowed. In any event we don't need to trap the
>> numbeir format that closely either as it doesn't matter if the user
>> enters with or without decimal separators. This looks like regular
>> expressions gone MAD to me and given that it really isn't that good I
>> don't think it is worth it IMHO. Better off just sticking with Tim's
>> class="number" format.... he has also developed a class="integer" which
>> doesn't allow the hyphen to get negatives nor any decimal separators so
>> quite a good additional check... should try to bring that in I think.
>>
>> Tim has also made some improvements to the confirm boxes but probably
>> unnecessary really, especially since it adds significantly to the size
>> of the file. I do like the improvement he has made to allow sorting
>> tables so that needs to be brought in too - actually not much code
>> required for this as it turns out.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> Phil Daintree
>> Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
>> http://www.logicworks.co.nz
>> skype:daintree
>>
>>
>> On 17/07/13 18:52, webERP Developers wrote:
>>> *Hi, Phil:*
>>>
>>>              I've checked the html5 transaction page. And it seems that the
>>> current gating issue is the number validation.
>>>
>>>             I've studied Tim's js function. The function only validate users'
>>> input by single character. A pattern is a must to ensure the correct input.
>>> I've made one as following:
>>>
>>>
>>> pattern="(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\.?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:,?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^(\d{1,2},)?(\d{2},)*(\d{3})(\.\d+)?|(\d{1,3})(\.\d+)?$)"
>>>
>>>               It used to validate number format pattern as described in
>>> webERP's languageArray.inc.
>>>
>>>              It is tested OK in firefox and js regex on line. But it seems that
>>> it does not work in Chrome.
>>>
>>>              Any comments are welcome!
>>>
>>>             Thanks and best regards!
>>>
>>>             Exson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656589.html
>>> Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
>>> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
>>> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
>>> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Web-erp-developers mailing list
>>> Web...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
>> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
>> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
>> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web-erp-developers mailing list
>> Web...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>

Re: [WebERP-developers] pattern to match numbers

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

It would fail for European locales with a comma as a decimal point.

Phil

Phil Daintree
Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
http://www.logicworks.co.nz
skype:daintree


On 17/07/13 22:26, webERP Developers wrote:
> Well the pattern we use will have to be different depending on:
>
> a) the user's locale
> b) the number of decimal places that are allowed
>
>
> so
> pattern="(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\.?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:,?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{,
> })?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^(\d{1,2},)?(\d{2},)*(\d{3})(\.\d+)?|(\d{1,3})(\.\d+)?$)"
>
>
> is a bit of a kludge and a very long one that really doesn't check
> accurately the number format in any event as it doesn't take into
> account the actual number format particular to the locale nor the number
> of decimal places allowed. In any event we don't need to trap the
> numbeir format that closely either as it doesn't matter if the user
> enters with or without decimal separators. This looks like regular
> expressions gone MAD to me and given that it really isn't that good I
> don't think it is worth it IMHO. Better off just sticking with Tim's
> class="number" format.... he has also developed a class="integer" which
> doesn't allow the hyphen to get negatives nor any decimal separators so
> quite a good additional check... should try to bring that in I think.
>
> Tim has also made some improvements to the confirm boxes but probably
> unnecessary really, especially since it adds significantly to the size
> of the file. I do like the improvement he has made to allow sorting
> tables so that needs to be brought in too - actually not much code
> required for this as it turns out.
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Daintree
> Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
> http://www.logicworks.co.nz
> skype:daintree
>
>
> On 17/07/13 18:52, webERP Developers wrote:
>> *Hi, Phil:*
>>
>>             I've checked the html5 transaction page. And it seems that the
>> current gating issue is the number validation.
>>
>>            I've studied Tim's js function. The function only validate users'
>> input by single character. A pattern is a must to ensure the correct input.
>> I've made one as following:
>>
>>
>> pattern="(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\.?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:,?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^(\d{1,2},)?(\d{2},)*(\d{3})(\.\d+)?|(\d{1,3})(\.\d+)?$)"
>>
>>              It used to validate number format pattern as described in
>> webERP's languageArray.inc.
>>
>>             It is tested OK in firefox and js regex on line. But it seems that
>> it does not work in Chrome.
>>
>>             Any comments are welcome!
>>
>>            Thanks and best regards!
>>
>>            Exson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656589.html
>> Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
>> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
>> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
>> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web-erp-developers mailing list
>> Web...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>

Re: [WebERP-developers] pattern to match numbers

[webERP D. <web...@li...>]

Hi Exson,

The pattern works for me in firefox and opera for a number of 
scenarios... but it is a bit too crazy for me i think and gives us very 
little over Tim's javascript - better to work on an improvement to that 
I think perhaps through oninput as you suggest.

Phil

Phil Daintree
Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
http://www.logicworks.co.nz
skype:daintree


On 17/07/13 22:26, webERP Developers wrote:
> Well the pattern we use will have to be different depending on:
>
> a) the user's locale
> b) the number of decimal places that are allowed
>
>
> so
> pattern="(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\.?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:,?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{,
> })?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^(\d{1,2},)?(\d{2},)*(\d{3})(\.\d+)?|(\d{1,3})(\.\d+)?$)"
>
>
> is a bit of a kludge and a very long one that really doesn't check
> accurately the number format in any event as it doesn't take into
> account the actual number format particular to the locale nor the number
> of decimal places allowed. In any event we don't need to trap the
> numbeir format that closely either as it doesn't matter if the user
> enters with or without decimal separators. This looks like regular
> expressions gone MAD to me and given that it really isn't that good I
> don't think it is worth it IMHO. Better off just sticking with Tim's
> class="number" format.... he has also developed a class="integer" which
> doesn't allow the hyphen to get negatives nor any decimal separators so
> quite a good additional check... should try to bring that in I think.
>
> Tim has also made some improvements to the confirm boxes but probably
> unnecessary really, especially since it adds significantly to the size
> of the file. I do like the improvement he has made to allow sorting
> tables so that needs to be brought in too - actually not much code
> required for this as it turns out.
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Daintree
> Logic Works Ltd - +64 (0)275 567890
> http://www.logicworks.co.nz
> skype:daintree
>
>
> On 17/07/13 18:52, webERP Developers wrote:
>> *Hi, Phil:*
>>
>>             I've checked the html5 transaction page. And it seems that the
>> current gating issue is the number validation.
>>
>>            I've studied Tim's js function. The function only validate users'
>> input by single character. A pattern is a must to ensure the correct input.
>> I've made one as following:
>>
>>
>> pattern="(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\.?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:,?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:\.\d{1,})?$)|(?:^\d{1,3}(?:\s?\d{3})*(?:,\d{1,})?$)|(?:^(\d{1,2},)?(\d{2},)*(\d{3})(\.\d+)?|(\d{1,3})(\.\d+)?$)"
>>
>>              It used to validate number format pattern as described in
>> webERP's languageArray.inc.
>>
>>             It is tested OK in firefox and js regex on line. But it seems that
>> it does not work in Chrome.
>>
>>             Any comments are welcome!
>>
>>            Thanks and best regards!
>>
>>            Exson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://weberp-accounting.1478800.n4.nabble.com/Intention-to-roll-up-new-version-and-future-plans-tp4656547p4656589.html
>> Sent from the web-ERP-developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
>> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
>> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
>> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web-erp-developers mailing list
>> Web...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>