| [19:30:09] | * generalredneck[m] has joined #farmos |
| [19:33:37] | <generalredneck[m]> | hey yall.... (full message at <https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AZbw3nLiqQCheqPRZiWJeuLd...) |
| [19:34:15] | <generalredneck[m]> | generalredneck[m]: Looking to try and do calculations of eggs per chicken |
| [19:36:51] | <generalredneck[m]> | Oh and Hi! Long time no see! |
| [19:36:53] | <generalredneck[m]> | generalredneck[m]: Going to bail to do some evening stuff. |
| [19:36:53] | <generalredneck[m]> | I really appreciate it |
| [19:41:01] | <generalredneck[m]> | generalredneck[m]: FYI On a very new install of 3.3.3 |
| [19:41:52] | <generalredneck[m]> | generalredneck[m]: I don't find any "field" modules or much info on how to work with it. |
| [21:32:16] | <paul121[m]> | hi generalredneck ! welcome back |
| [21:33:36] | <paul121[m]> | re field kit, yea, it might not be fully working. farmOS core server doesn't come with any field modules but iirc field kit "core" itself has a few simple modules that should work for things like simple observations. |
| [21:35:11] | <paul121[m]> | You could try enabling the [`farm_fieldkit_test`](https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS/tree/3.x/modules/core/fieldkit/modules/...) module to test if the client -> server field kit module discovery is working tho... then check your console for a message. |
| [21:38:39] | <paul121[m]> | re: your second question, yes, I think the current approach would be to assign an "inventory" for the "animal count" to your group asset. The inventory will need to be initialized and adjusted with logs & quantities that reference your group asset. You could use a quantity label of your choice for this, maybe "chickens" is best? Not sure we have a best practice for this |
| [21:39:00] | <paul121[m]> | Inventory docs: https://farmos.org/model/logic/inventory/ |
| [21:39:28] | <paul121[m]> | * a quantity <del>label, * label</del>, * unit of your |
| [05:50:36] | <mstenta[m]> | > You could use a quantity unit of your choice for this, maybe "chickens" is best? Not sure we have a best practice for this |
| [05:50:36] | <mstenta[m]> | I would say for animal head counts no unit is necessary. If the Group is called "Chicken flock" then a simple number is enough and the meaning is implied. But that's up to you. |
| [05:51:26] | <mstenta[m]> | Units are useful to differentiate multiple inventories, or in inventories where the unit is not implied |
| [05:52:17] | <mstenta[m]> | But if you want to be extra explicit, a "chickens" unit is fine. A better (more general one) might be "head". |
| [05:52:39] | <mstenta[m]> | In the farmOS v1 grazing module, the convention was no unit. |
| [05:53:15] | <mstenta[m]> | Although in that case, the inventory was actually on an Animal asset, not on a Group asset |
| [05:53:29] | <mstenta[m]> | (eg: Animal asset named "Chicken flock 1" with a head count inventory) |
| [05:54:14] | <mstenta[m]> | Then you can put your "Chicken flock 1" into a Group asset called "Flerd" with a bunch of individual sheep ;-) |
| [06:06:11] | <mstenta[m]> | Hey pcambra! Question about your multi-tenant farmOS exploration work... |
| [06:06:40] | <mstenta[m]> | I'm trying to get our 3.x-organization PR over the finish line (https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS/pull/849) - getting very close! |
| [06:07:19] | <mstenta[m]> | I'm curious if you have any new thoughts regarding the user field that the PR currently adds to organization entities. |
| [06:07:33] | <mstenta[m]> | The PR currently states: |
| [06:07:33] | <mstenta[m]> | > The "Users" (`user`) field allows users a group to reference one or more user accounts that are associated with it. This does not serve any purpose other than informational at this point, but could be used in the future for building additional UX and/or access control features on top of. |
| [06:07:56] | <mstenta[m]> | In the PR you commented: |
| [06:07:56] | <mstenta[m]> | > Maybe we could remove the user field to leverage it from a Group integration instead? |
| [06:07:56] | <mstenta[m]> | (https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS/pull/849#pullrequestreview-2511392812) |
| [06:08:46] | <mstenta[m]> | I spoke with paul121 about this, and we are leaning towards removing the `user` field from the PR, and basically punting on the decision for now. |
| [06:09:21] | <mstenta[m]> | But I wanted to check in with you again pcambra - in case anything has changed/developed on your end that leverages the `user` field. |
| [06:10:03] | <mstenta[m]> | s/users// |
| [06:18:17] | * farmBOT has joined #farmos |
| [07:04:09] | <pcambra[m]> | yup, that´s on my proposal for the changes with the access control stuff |
| [07:04:17] | <pcambra[m]> | (removing the user field) |
| [07:04:38] | <mstenta[m]> | ok. i'll go ahead and remove it from the PR. |
| [07:05:22] | <mstenta[m]> | we may decide we need a core data model mechanism for assigning users to organizations in the future (outside of the group module context), but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. |
| [07:06:18] | <mstenta[m]> | one more question... the PR also has this outstanding todo: |
| [07:06:18] | <mstenta[m]> | > Add support for filtering location hierarchy by farm. |
| [07:06:18] | <mstenta[m]> | > I'm imagining a dropdown of Farms in the `/locations` page, which filters the hierarchy to only include assets in that farm. |
| [07:06:52] | <mstenta[m]> | This is specifically in the/locations page, which shows a hierarchy of all location assets using the inspire_tree JS |
| [07:07:26] | <mstenta[m]> | If I add a dropdown to that page for filtering by farm, will that work for your purposes? |
| [07:08:18] | <pcambra[m]> | yeah, I'm working in a document proposal that includes some of this, including work on the PR |
| [07:09:47] | <mstenta[m]> | Oh OK well the hope is that this will make it into 3.4.0, so I'm working on finishing up the PR. |
| [07:10:27] | <mstenta[m]> | So if your proposal includes additional requirements on the PR we should go over that |
| [07:11:10] | <mstenta[m]> | I have to sign off for now... time to get the kids ready for school :-) |
| [09:42:47] | <mstenta[m]> | paul121: I just opened a series of PRs that address some of the prerequisites we need in https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS/pull/849 - ready for review@! |
| [09:43:24] | <mstenta[m]> | They are all part of the same branch, so the last one includes all the commits for all of them, but I figured they deserved separate PRs since they add a number of new features. |
| [09:43:52] | <mstenta[m]> | Here are all of them in order:... (full message at <https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AWkwIJwYRYujnbIOARbFKwCl...) |
| [09:44:26] | <mstenta[m]> | I added them all to the 3.4.0 milestone. So if they look good maybe we can start an official 3.4.x branch and merge them in, then rebase 3.x-organization on top of that. |