| 17 Apr 2024 |
 GitHub | ✳ ehuelsmann merged PR ledgersmb/LedgerSMB#8158: "Move reconciliation to workflow" | 20:29:04 |
 ehuelsmann | but I don't think the Workflow library supports the "generated always" pattern. | 20:29:06 |
| ehuelsmann | (because it doesn't seem to be able to extract the resulting ID value from the INSERT query. | 20:29:34 |
 neilt (aka Jack) | I thought I was pretty conservative in NOT changing anything that was not clear cut. | 20:32:11 |
| ehuelsmann | yep. I think that was good. | 20:33:11 |
| ehuelsmann | this couldn't be changed without a new release of the Workflow library. | 20:33:25 |
| ehuelsmann | https://www.olafalders.com/2024/04/15/getting-started-with-perlimports/ | 20:39:38 |
 @ledgersmb:matrix.freelock.com | Coveralls notice: Merge a6baeb7b2c9cc5f4f5d87247948ded7ed03b9480 into c9c738dcb62b2011a5239425f0b6ffe3339da7d0. 47.42% (-0.1 changed). | 20:51:56 |
| @ledgersmb:matrix.freelock.com | Coveralls notice: Merge pull request #8158 from ylavoie/cleanup/recon-workflow
Move reconciliation to workflow. 47.48% (-0.07 changed). | 20:52:22 |
| GitHub | ✳ ehuelsmann merged PR ledgersmb/LedgerSMB#8159: "Fix patch log" | 20:56:50 |
| ehuelsmann | Yves: I fixed recurring transactions sharing workflows. I'm wondering what to do about existing data. I prefer not to have new sql/changes/ within a release series. | 21:00:10 |
| ehuelsmann | should I leave it for 1.12? or should I backport the script to 1.11? | 21:02:03 |
| ehuelsmann | I haven't had any reports of problems with recurring transactions. | 21:02:42 |
| ehuelsmann | the schema doesn't get any changes, but the changes infrastructure is nice to fix this problem (once) | 21:03:19 |
 Yves | 1.11 will be running for a while, I think that we should backport. Existing data is indeed a problem | 21:07:16 |
| ehuelsmann | ok. then I think this might ultimately something we want to solve with "consistency checks" . | 21:11:28 |
| ehuelsmann | I mean, with fixes, that is. | 21:11:43 |
| ehuelsmann | for now, the change infrastructure will have to do. | 21:13:55 |
| @ledgersmb:matrix.freelock.com | Coveralls notice: Merge pull request #8159 from ylavoie/fix/db-patch-log
Fix patch log. 47.40% (-0.07 changed). | 21:19:53 |
 freelock | Trying to disable a user. Went to System -> Users, selected the user. A little scared to delete, would rather disable. So I tried to reset the password as a first step, got "Error: Action not defined: reset_password" | 22:19:16 |
| freelock | It did work in setup.pl | 22:21:09 |
| Yves | Same here. Looking. | 22:22:28 |
| Yves | No trace of reset_password in System -> Users in 1.9 to 1.12. Weird | 23:03:40 |
| 18 Apr 2024 |
| ehuelsmann | Hmm interesting thought: we could revoke "login" from the user? | 06:19:12 |
| ehuelsmann | Then the role can be disabled by removing login | 06:39:21 |
| ehuelsmann | And reenabled by adding exactly that back | 06:39:52 |
| ehuelsmann | (that is safer than setting arbitrary passwords. | 06:40:34 |
| ehuelsmann | And simpler to restore than deleting. | 06:42:01 |
| neilt (aka Jack) | In reply to @ehuelsmann:matrix.org
Then the role can be disabled by removing login Would this appear in an audit log? | 12:08:28 |
| ehuelsmann | Yes. There is some work to be done before that workflow can be made visible, but yes, in principle it will. | 12:36:35 |
