We are interested in using Odoo but we would need to modify it slightly for our use case, for instance modifying partner by adding fields, and integrating with an external system.
Is it best to fork it or to make a module with the changes in? The changes would be quite specific to our use case and existing system so it's unlikely it would be useful to anyone else as a module/app.
My thinking is that by forking it would be easier to stay up to date with Odoo - we just have to pull in changes from upstream occasionally. It seems like with a module you would end up with lots of stale code that's difficult to update because you've moved it outside the source tree.
It also seems like it would be easier to deploy because you have all the code in one place rather than two.
As from my POV and according to many years of ERP - experience, it is the best advice to implement those kind of changes always in an own module (inheriting all the required standard components) and leave the standard untouched. This applies also for very specific customizations as well as for general improvements.
This procedure provides you with the best flexibility in installing, updating, distributing and maintaining your code while not being touched when updates to the standard modules are carried out on the target systems.
You will also be able to share and move your code between dev/test/prod systems and applying a version control on it.
Please always make sure to be in line with valid license obligations applying to your code (especially when inheriting standard modules).
Hope this helps ;-)
I'm trying to port some GDI/GDI+ code to Direct2D, but I'm still a little confused about which type of target is better to use (DC or Hwnd), because I found different performance depending on whether or not I used the Gpu. In particular, I found the following problems:
If I use the DCRenderTarget I can not use hardware acceleration (or Default), because I have continued violations of protected areas of memory. This does not happen if I use HwndRenderTarget.
If I use HwndRenderTarget, in general everything is fine, but if I have many window (like buttons), I lose the focus on the main window, which does not recognize the KeyPressed message, and, if I use the Gpu, performance fall a lot and strongly depend on the number of active targets (which does not happen if I use the software acceleration).
Has anyone encountered the same problems? Can you recommend something about it?
Thanks a lot!
In general, if you want Direct2D to interoperate with GDI, you should use ID2D1DCRenderTarget, otherwise, use ID2D1HwndRenderTarget.
I am not quite understood what you said about the performance, do you mean the performance was bad when your main window lost focus? If that's the case, you can handle the windows status to let it stop rendering when the window was lost focus, for example inactive.
So my question is simple and probably your answers will tell this is not possible...
Maybe on the first use of the dll file, I should see what is the MAC Address and put a restriction on that base? :)
Interesting question! You could manage a kind of white/black list (of course encrypted) in your DLL and handle the restriction code in DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH and then return TRUE or FALSE according to your needs.
You will need to search for specific technology or language and see what standard approaches do people use for this.
There is a trade off between how difficult it is to set up your product and the defence level. The tougher you make it for the bad guys, the tougher it will become to use your product.
You can use some sort of obfuscation and library encryption, which will work providing your user has a key (or password).
I have almost 4 months learning/working in SAP. I've done several reports and enhancements all along this time but recently I began to work in a requirement which is related to Mobile Data Entry or RF and it basically consists to add the EAN and some other data to the dynpro 2502.
I made a copy of the dynpro 2502 in program SAPLLMOB into SAPLXLRF 9502, related the user exit MWMRF502 and programmed the basic functionality of it but it is not working as I expected because this exit is very limited and it only lets me import and export a small group of data and is difficult to perform exactly as the standard.
I've been searching all over internet and a lot of people make their own implementations and other just simply change the standard. I don't know how to make my own implementation cause I don't understand all the process within and the alternative of changing the standard code would be better for performance and time spent in development but as I quoted I would have to change the standard code and that's something I would like to do only if there's no other option.
But the question is ¿Is it OK to change the standard? ¿How often is the the standard code changed in SAP implementations? ¿What would be the better alternative?
Thanks in advance.
You are asking the right sort of questions and it is good that you are not just plowing ahead without thinking about the consequences of what you are doing. Keep researching!
As far as changing the SAP standard goes, you generally do not want to copy an object to change it. For screens SAP quite often creates a user-exit with a sub-screen that can be modified by the customer. For Web-Dynpro you can use enhancement points and/or bADI's to extend the functionality.
Try to look for one of the following:
A SAP BAdI in the area that you want to change (transaction SE18),
a user-exit allowing you to change the necessary screen(s) (transaction SMOD),
explicit enhancement points within the functionality,
one of the implicit enhancement points in functionality
There are a lot of documentation on sdn.sap.com as well as within the SAP help regarding the topics above.
If none of are available, you may have no other choice but to modify (repair) the SAP standard objects. In order to be able to change the SAP standard you need to register the object(s) that you have to change on SAP OSS and get a repair key that the system needs to allow you to make changes. Always ensure that the SAP Modification Assistant is switched on when making changes, this will make your life a lot easier when you patch or upgrade your system.
If at all possible try to find an experienced ABAP programmer to help you with this.
Also see this question regarding changing SAP standard code:
Edit: Thomas Weiss on SDN has a helpful blog series on the enhancement and switch framework.
Always make sure that there's absolutely no other way to implement the functionality you need. If you're sure about that, then either write your own implementation from scratch, or simply change SAP's code. Just don't copy SAP's programs to the customer namespace, because I can guarantee you that that'll turn into a maintenance nightmare. You'll have to decide yourself whether the size of the change is worth the time building your own implementation, or changing SAP's.
If you decide to change SAP's code, keep in mind that all changes will pop up for review when the system is upgraded, which will take time to evaluate and adjust to the new SAP code.
Your options are, from most to least desirable:
Check the documentation of the application on help.sap.com for possible extensibility scenarios. There are many ways how SAP intends for you to customize their applications through various kinds of event architectures. Unfortunately any attempts by the various departments at SAP to agree on one event architecture and then stick to it failed. So you have user exits, BTEs, FQEVENTS, BAdIs, explicit enhancement spots and many more. If you want to know what's used by the application you need to change, RTM.
Use an implicit enhancement spot. Enhancements are a great way to modify standard software in ways SAP did not anticipate, because they are easy to disable and usually pretty stable during upgrades (use the transaction SPAU_ENH after an upgrade to confirm that your enhancements still make sense in the new version of the program). You will find implicit enhancement spots at the beginning and end of every include and every kind of subroutine, which allows you to inject arbitrary ABAP code in these locations.
But sometimes there just is no implicit enhancement spot where you need it to be. In that case you can copy the whole program into the customer-namespace and modify it. This gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with the program while still retaining the original program as a possible fall-back. It is usually a good idea to use as many components from the original program as possible, by including its includes or calling FORMs from the original program via PERFORM formname IN PROGRAM originalprogram. The main problem with this method is that after a new release, your program might no longer behave as expected. You will have to look at the new version of the program and see if there are any changes you need to port to your version. And there is nothing in the SAP standard that assists you with this maintenance task. So you are responsible to keep a list of all your copies of standard programs.
Just modify the program directly. But this is really a last-resort option for programs that are too complex to copy into the customer-namespace. The problem with this is that it means SAP will no longer offer you support for that program. If you post a ticket about that program on launchpad.support.sap.com, and they find out you modified the program, they will assume it's your own fault and close the ticket. But fortunately, when you upgrade your system, you have the transaction SPAU that will help you to merge your changes with the new versions of the modified SAP programs.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I work on a complex application where different teams work on their own modules with a degree of overlap. A while back we got a Mediawiki instance set up, partly at my prompting. I have a hard job getting people to actually use it, let alone contribute.
I can see a lot of benefit in sharing information. It may at least reduce the times we reinvent the wheel.
The wiki is not very structured, but I'm not sure that is a problem as long as you can search for what you need.
Any hints?
Some tips:
Any time someone sends information by email that really should be in a wiki, make a page for that topic and add what they put in the email. Then reply "Thanks for that info, I've put it into the wiki here so that it's easier to find in the future."
Likewise, if you have information you need to share that should be in the wiki, put it there and just send an email with a link to it, rather than email people.
When you ask people for information, phrase it so that putting such documentation in the wiki should be considered the default or standard: "I searched in the wiki but I couldn't find it. Have you put that info up there yet?"
If you are the "wiki champion", make sure other people know how to use it, e.g. "Did I go through how to create a new page with you yet?"
Edit the sidebar to make sure it is relevant to your work.
Use "nav box" style templates on related pages for easier navigation.
Put something like {{Special:NewPages/5}} on the front page, or recent changes, so that people can see the activity.
Take a peek at Recent changes every few days or week, and if you notice someone adding information without being prodded, send them an email or drop by and give them a little compliment.
As I mentioned before, a Wiki is very unorganized.
However, if that is the only argument from your developers, then invest some effort to create a simple index page and keep it updated (either do it yourself or ask people to link their contributions to the index). That way, the Wiki might grow into a very nice and quite comprehensive collection of documentation for all your work.
We've been using a wiki in some form or another for a while now, but it does take a while for people to get on board. You might find that you will be the only one writing articles for some time, but bear with it, other people will come on board eventually.
If someone sends an email around that contains information related to the project then helpfully point them in the direction of the wiki - and keep doing that - they should get the hint.
We have a SharePoint portal and use the wiki from there - we customised it with our own branding so that it "looks the part" - I really feel this has helped to improve the uptake of it.
Make sure that everyone is aware that the wiki is even more informal than email.... because there will be a "fear factor" that people may think anything they add to the wiki will be over-analysed.
I think most of the answers so far are spot on - the more you plug away at it yourself, the larger the body of useful information will become, so slowly but surely people will naturally start to use it.
The other approach you could use is this: Suggest that every time someone asks another team member a question about the project, they should answer the question as normal, but also add the answer to a section of the Wiki. This may take a few minutes extra, but it will mean that the next time someone asks the same question (which they inevitably will), you can save time by pointing them at the Wiki. This, in turn, should help people to start using the Wiki as a first source of information and help overall up-take.
You can't force developers to do something they do not have an incentive of using for; unfortunately wikis, like documentation (well, in fact wikis are documentation) rarely have any "cool" value for developers. Besides, they're already deep into dev work -- could you really bother them with a wiki?
That being said, the people who pushed for the wiki (e.g., you) should be primarily responsible for updating it, and you really would have a lot of work cut out for you if you're serious about it.
You might also try the ff:
It's not very structured you say -- a lot of people get turned off from ill-structured (hard-to-search/browse) wikis. So maybe you can fix that first
Maybe you can ask lead developers/project managers to populate it with things that are issues for them: things like code conventions and API design for your particular project
Lead by example: religiously document your part of the system. Setting a precedent may encourage others to do the same
Sell the idea of using the wiki to the developers. You've identified some benefits, share those with the developers. If they can see that they'll get something of value out of it they'll start using it.
Example advantages from What Is a Wiki
Good for writing down quick ideas or longer ones, giving you more time for formal writing and editing.
Instantly collaborative without emailing documents, keeping the group in sync.
Accessible from anywhere with a web connection (if you don't mind writing in web-browser text forms).
Your archive, because every page revision is kept.
Exciting, immediate, and empowering--everyone has a say.
I have done some selling and even run some training sessions. I think some people are turned off by the lack of WYSIWYG editing and ability to paste formatted text from Word or Outlook. I know there are some tools to work around these, but they are still barriers.
There are some areas where the wiki is being used to log certain areas, but people who update those are not doing anything else with it.
I will use the wiki to document my specialised area regardless as it acts as a convenient brain extension. When starting a new development I use it as a notepad for ideas that I can expand on as it progresses.
It would help if management would give it some vocal support, even if it is not made mandatory.
I have a hard job getting people to actually use it, let alone contribute.
One of the easiest ways to get people to contribute to a wiki, is to actually have them provide contents in a wiki-suitable fashion, i.e. so that whatever they post using their usual channels of communications (newsgroups, mailing lists, forums, issue trackers, chat), is basically suitable for inclusion on the wiki.
So that others (users/volunteers) can simply take such contents and put them on the wiki.
This sounds more complicated than it really is, it's mostly about generalizing questions and answers, so that they are not necessarily part of a conversation, but can be comprehensible, meaningful and useful in a standalone fashion.
For example a question like the following:
how do I get git to clone a remote repository???
Can be answered like this:
Hello,
Just use git clone git://...
But questions can also be answered in a less personal style:
In order to clone a git repository, you will want to use the clone parameter to git:
git clone git://....
What I am trying to say is that most discussions in a project can and should be easily used to become documentation eventually. With this sort of mindset, your documentation can actually grow rather rapidly. You only need to get people to keep in mind that useful information should be ideally provided in a fashion that is suitable for wiki inclusion.
I have witnessed several instances where open source projects started to use this approach to some extent and while some people (largely new users) complained that answers were not very personal, the body of documentation was increasing steadily, because other people simply monitored such discussions and started to copy/paste such responses to the wiki.
Basically, this is one of the easiest ways to get people to contribute to a wiki, without requiring them to actually use it themselves, the only thing that's required of them is a shift in thinking.
If the developers still need to maintain 'real' documentation (s.a. Word documents), I see no way to meaningfully duplicate that on a Wiki.
It does not make sense for people to write twice
Any duplicated data is prone to get out of sync, soon.
What my current customer has done is move all this to Wiki. So I only document once, and I do it on the Wiki.
This is okay. Working with Wiki is more tedious than with Word, but at least the doc is online and others can mix-and-match with it.
Another working solution (imho) would be to store docs alongside the source, on subversion. But then the merging system needs to be able to cope with rich text etc. as well. I don't know, if any solution for that exists (other than using HTML or LaTex, which actually would not be bad picks).
Find "sticky" items (sub-3 pg. docs / diagrams / etc) something that the team seems to be creating again and again & post it on the wiki. Make sure everyone has access to the wiki and knows its there - set up a notification mechanism if possible. With some luck, the next time they have to access, rather than dig it out of version control or their machines - they should hit the wiki.
If they still don't, try to see if the team has enough slack to actually use the wiki - Subtler issues may lie beneath their reluctance.
Take a look at the advice at http://www.ikiw.org/ Grow your Wiki
Just to add to some of the excellent advice being offered here...
As a dev in a small company that does largely gov't contract work in the 6-24 month range, I find that my time is often split between development and writing status reports (right up there with writing documentation, only worse!) Having a wiki to slap down unorganized thoughts and notes as we go along has made report-writing a lot less painful (not pain-LESS, but better all the same).
Further, if you're already in the Mediawiki world, you might want to look at SemanticMediawiki. It allows you to take the organization of your data to another level by semantically tagging it. That doesn't mean a lot on its own, I know, but I can tell you (for example) that it can drastically improve the relevance of the data returned from searches. It is definitely worth a look.
Generally good advice here. I'd like to add:
You really need a champion - someone pushing this to developers and management (without being pushy - that's a challenge!) and providing support & tutorials when possible. This person also needs to be a peer (so a fellow developer, not someone in a remote IT department) and really customer focused i.e. ready to make changes when requested.
Speaking of changes, some people here say wikis are unstructured. I disagree. Our MediaWiki installation is structured using categories, particularly with two extensions:WarnNoCategories (to require users to add a category when saving a page) and CategoryTree to show how all the categories fit together (this can be linked to from the sidebar). I've got more tips on how we keep this low threshold, if you're interested.