Extend type entities to add name of detail entity where hasTable is true.

[Arun Patidar-2]

Hello All,

'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
basis of typeId field value.

For example :

ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
PostalAddress for detail.

similarly,
ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
TelecomNumber for detail.

is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis of
typeId value?

If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
Some of them are:
   - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
   - PaymentGatewayConfigType

if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
detail entity.


Please let me know your thoughts.


--
Thanks & Regards
---
Arun Patidar
Manager, Enterprise Software Development

HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.

www.hotwaxsystems.com

[taher]

Hmmm maybe a solution that enforces naming conventions is something like
the following
- if hasTable is defined, the entity engine automatically creates the table
using the convention of id
- if someone wants to intentionally change the table name, they can set an
override field like tableName.

Whatever the convention is, if we can automate it through the entity engine
I think it would enforce the extensibility pattern in a systematic way to
avoid (probably unintentional) anomalies like the one you mentioned.

So maybe in addition to the new field, we can perhaps add an enforcement
mechanism? If this sounds like an overkill then ignore what I said.

On Sep 1, 2017 2:19 PM, "Arun Patidar" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
> basis of typeId field value.
>
> For example :
>
> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
> PostalAddress for detail.
>
> similarly,
> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
> TelecomNumber for detail.
>
> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis of
> typeId value?
>
> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
> Some of them are:
>    - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>    - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>
> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
> detail entity.
>
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> ---
> Arun Patidar
> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>
> HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.
>
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>

[Rishi Solanki]

I'm not sure this one is best practice or not, but it should be follow. We
should try to name the type same as entity name.
Other examples;
- PartyTpe >> PERSON and PARTY_GROUP
- PaymentMethodType >> CREDIT_CARD, FIN_ACCOUNT, EFT_ACCOUNT, GIFT_CARD etc.

IMO, best practice is to have the hasTable attribute in the entity. Also if
its entity exists then value must be Y.

I see ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType not setting
value to Y for the types system having the entities. Also PaymentMethodType
does not have the hasTable attribute.

So I think we should fix both these and no need to have the extra field.



Rishi Solanki
Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: [phone]
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Arun Patidar <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
> basis of typeId field value.
>
> For example :
>
> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
> PostalAddress for detail.
>
> similarly,
> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
> TelecomNumber for detail.
>
> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis of
> typeId value?
>
> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
> Some of them are:
>    - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>    - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>
> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
> detail entity.
>
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> ---
> Arun Patidar
> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>
> HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.
>
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

It's described here https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview#GeneralEntityOverview-ExtensibilityPattern

What is the problem with ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType (did not check)?

Jacques


Le 01/09/2017 à 13:18, Arun Patidar a écrit :

> Hello All,
>
> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
> basis of typeId field value.
>
> For example :
>
> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
> PostalAddress for detail.
>
> similarly,
> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
> TelecomNumber for detail.
>
> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis of
> typeId value?
>
> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
> Some of them are:
>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>
> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
> detail entity.
>
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
>

[Rishi Solanki]

Thanks Jacques!

Rishi Solanki
Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: [phone]
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's described here https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview#GeneralEntityO
> verview-ExtensibilityPattern
>
> What is the problem with ShipmentGatewayConfigType and
> PaymentGatewayConfigType (did not check)?
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 01/09/2017 à 13:18, Arun Patidar a écrit :
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
>> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
>> basis of typeId field value.
>>
>> For example :
>>
>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
>> PostalAddress for detail.
>>
>> similarly,
>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
>> TelecomNumber for detail.
>>
>> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis
>> of
>> typeId value?
>>
>> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
>> Some of them are:
>>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>>
>> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
>> detail entity.
>>
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>
>>
>>
>

[Rishi Solanki]

Here is the part related to this thread, from the document shared.

"If a table is associated with a given EntityType instance that has the
same name as the entityTypeId field value then the hasTable field should
have the value 'Y', otherwise it should have the value 'N'. A description
field is provided for a short description of an EntityType instance."

After this, we should try to match id as much as possible and description
field should be use for entity description.

Thanks again Jacques for the link.



Rishi Solanki
Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: [phone]
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Rishi Solanki <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thanks Jacques!
>
> Rishi Solanki
> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> Direct: [phone]
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
> www.hotwax.co
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It's described here https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
>> uence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview#GeneralEntityOve
>> rview-ExtensibilityPattern
>>
>> What is the problem with ShipmentGatewayConfigType and
>> PaymentGatewayConfigType (did not check)?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 01/09/2017 à 13:18, Arun Patidar a écrit :
>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
>>> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
>>> basis of typeId field value.
>>>
>>> For example :
>>>
>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
>>> PostalAddress for detail.
>>>
>>> similarly,
>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
>>> TelecomNumber for detail.
>>>
>>> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis
>>> of
>>> typeId value?
>>>
>>> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
>>> Some of them are:
>>>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>>>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>>>
>>> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
>>> detail entity.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Vaibhav Jain]

+1 for introducing new attribute "tableName".



Vaibhav Jain
Hotwax Systems,
[hidden email]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Rishi Solanki <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm not sure this one is best practice or not, but it should be follow. We
> should try to name the type same as entity name.
> Other examples;
> - PartyTpe >> PERSON and PARTY_GROUP
> - PaymentMethodType >> CREDIT_CARD, FIN_ACCOUNT, EFT_ACCOUNT, GIFT_CARD
> etc.
>
> IMO, best practice is to have the hasTable attribute in the entity. Also if
> its entity exists then value must be Y.
>
> I see ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType not setting
> value to Y for the types system having the entities. Also PaymentMethodType
> does not have the hasTable attribute.
>
> So I think we should fix both these and no need to have the extra field.
>
>
>
> Rishi Solanki
> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> Direct: [phone]
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
> www.hotwax.co
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Arun Patidar <arun.patidar@hotwaxsystems.
> com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
> > entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
> > basis of typeId field value.
> >
> > For example :
> >
> > ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
> > PostalAddress for detail.
> >
> > similarly,
> > ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
> > TelecomNumber for detail.
> >
> > is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis
> of
> > typeId value?
> >
> > If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
> > Some of them are:
> >    - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
> >    - PaymentGatewayConfigType
> >
> > if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
> > detail entity.
> >
> >
> > Please let me know your thoughts.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards
> > ---
> > Arun Patidar
> > Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> >
> > HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.
> >
> > www.hotwaxsystems.com
> >
>

[Arun Patidar-2]

Hello Jacques,

Problems with ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType
entities are:
- 'hasTable' field values is set to N for these entities
- 'typeId' field values do not give direction about detail entity name





--
Thanks & Regards
---
Arun Patidar
Manager, Enterprise Software Development

HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.

www.hotwaxsystems.com


On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's described here https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/display/OFBIZ/General+Entity+Overview#GeneralEntityO
> verview-ExtensibilityPattern
>
> What is the problem with ShipmentGatewayConfigType and
> PaymentGatewayConfigType (did not check)?
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 01/09/2017 à 13:18, Arun Patidar a écrit :
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
>> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
>> basis of typeId field value.
>>
>> For example :
>>
>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
>> PostalAddress for detail.
>>
>> similarly,
>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
>> TelecomNumber for detail.
>>
>> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis
>> of
>> typeId value?
>>
>> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
>> Some of them are:
>>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>>
>> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
>> detail entity.
>>
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 05/09/2017 à 14:39, Arun Patidar a écrit :

> Hello Jacques,
>
> Problems with ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType
> entities are:
> - 'hasTable' field values is set to N for these entities
> - 'typeId' field values do not give direction about detail entity name
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Arun,

Yes indeed, this clearly needs to be fixed following the ExtensibilityPattern

Jacques

[Arun Patidar-2]

Here is ticket for tracking this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-9696

--
Thanks & Regards
---
Arun Patidar
Manager, Enterprise Software Development

HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.

www.hotwaxsystems.com


On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 05/09/2017 à 14:39, Arun Patidar a écrit :
>
>> Hello Jacques,
>>
>> Problems with ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType
>> entities are:
>> - 'hasTable' field values is set to N for these entities
>> - 'typeId' field values do not give direction about detail entity name
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Arun,
>
> Yes indeed, this clearly needs to be fixed following the
> ExtensibilityPattern
>
> Jacques
>
>

[Michael Brohl-3]

Hi Arun,

thanks for reporting this.

I think we should keep the convention and fix the metioned types.

Introducing a new field to specify the detail table should not be necessary.

Thanks,

Michael


Am 01.09.17 um 13:18 schrieb Arun Patidar:

> Hello All,
>
> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
> basis of typeId field value.
>
> For example :
>
> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
> PostalAddress for detail.
>
> similarly,
> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
> TelecomNumber for detail.
>
> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis of
> typeId value?
>
> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
> Some of them are:
>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>
> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
> detail entity.
>
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
>

[Michael Brohl-3]

-1 from my side, I think we can solve this by convention instead of
introducing a new field.

Thanks,

Michael


Am 01.09.17 um 15:53 schrieb Vaibhav Jain:

> +1 for introducing new attribute "tableName".
>
>
>
> Vaibhav Jain
> Hotwax Systems,
> [hidden email]
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Rishi Solanki <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure this one is best practice or not, but it should be follow. We
>> should try to name the type same as entity name.
>> Other examples;
>> - PartyTpe >> PERSON and PARTY_GROUP
>> - PaymentMethodType >> CREDIT_CARD, FIN_ACCOUNT, EFT_ACCOUNT, GIFT_CARD
>> etc.
>>
>> IMO, best practice is to have the hasTable attribute in the entity. Also if
>> its entity exists then value must be Y.
>>
>> I see ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType not setting
>> value to Y for the types system having the entities. Also PaymentMethodType
>> does not have the hasTable attribute.
>>
>> So I think we should fix both these and no need to have the extra field.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rishi Solanki
>> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
>> Direct: [phone]
>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
>> www.hotwax.co
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Arun Patidar <arun.patidar@hotwaxsystems.
>> com
>>> wrote:
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
>>> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
>>> basis of typeId field value.
>>>
>>> For example :
>>>
>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
>>> PostalAddress for detail.
>>>
>>> similarly,
>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
>>> TelecomNumber for detail.
>>>
>>> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis
>> of
>>> typeId value?
>>>
>>> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
>>> Some of them are:
>>>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>>>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>>>
>>> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
>>> detail entity.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks & Regards
>>> ---
>>> Arun Patidar
>>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>>
>>> HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.
>>>
>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>>>

[Rishi Solanki]

Thanks Michael,

I'm also in favor of using id and description fields suggest the entity
name. Existing model is capable to to resolve the reported issue if we
follow the conventions.

Rishi Solanki
Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: [phone]
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> -1 from my side, I think we can solve this by convention instead of
> introducing a new field.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
> Am 01.09.17 um 15:53 schrieb Vaibhav Jain:
>
> +1 for introducing new attribute "tableName".
>>
>>
>>
>> Vaibhav Jain
>> Hotwax Systems,
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Rishi Solanki <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure this one is best practice or not, but it should be follow. We
>>> should try to name the type same as entity name.
>>> Other examples;
>>> - PartyTpe >> PERSON and PARTY_GROUP
>>> - PaymentMethodType >> CREDIT_CARD, FIN_ACCOUNT, EFT_ACCOUNT, GIFT_CARD
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> IMO, best practice is to have the hasTable attribute in the entity. Also
>>> if
>>> its entity exists then value must be Y.
>>>
>>> I see ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType not setting
>>> value to Y for the types system having the entities. Also
>>> PaymentMethodType
>>> does not have the hasTable attribute.
>>>
>>> So I think we should fix both these and no need to have the extra field.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rishi Solanki
>>> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
>>> Direct: [phone]
>>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
>>> www.hotwax.co
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Arun Patidar <arun.patidar@hotwaxsystems.
>>> com
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that detail
>>>> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on the
>>>> basis of typeId field value.
>>>>
>>>> For example :
>>>>
>>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
>>>> PostalAddress for detail.
>>>>
>>>> similarly,
>>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
>>>> TelecomNumber for detail.
>>>>
>>>> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the basis
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>> typeId value?
>>>>
>>>> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the pattern.
>>>> Some of them are:
>>>>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
>>>>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
>>>>
>>>> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name of
>>>> detail entity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks & Regards
>>>> ---
>>>> Arun Patidar
>>>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>>>
>>>> HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>>>>
>>>>
>
>

[Arun Patidar-2]

Thanks Michael and Rishi for your feedback.  If we follow the proper
convention with TypeId and entity name then there is no issue. But the case
is that there is some inconsistency in existing entities. We will have to
fix some of the existing entities as per convention.

--
Thanks & Regards
---
Arun Patidar
Manager, Enterprise Software Development

HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.

www.hotwaxsystems.com


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Rishi Solanki <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thanks Michael,
>
> I'm also in favor of using id and description fields suggest the entity
> name. Existing model is capable to to resolve the reported issue if we
> follow the conventions.
>
> Rishi Solanki
> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> Direct: [phone]
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
> www.hotwax.co
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Michael Brohl <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > -1 from my side, I think we can solve this by convention instead of
> > introducing a new field.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > Am 01.09.17 um 15:53 schrieb Vaibhav Jain:
> >
> > +1 for introducing new attribute "tableName".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Vaibhav Jain
> >> Hotwax Systems,
> >> [hidden email]
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Rishi Solanki <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not sure this one is best practice or not, but it should be follow.
> We
> >>> should try to name the type same as entity name.
> >>> Other examples;
> >>> - PartyTpe >> PERSON and PARTY_GROUP
> >>> - PaymentMethodType >> CREDIT_CARD, FIN_ACCOUNT, EFT_ACCOUNT, GIFT_CARD
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, best practice is to have the hasTable attribute in the entity.
> Also
> >>> if
> >>> its entity exists then value must be Y.
> >>>
> >>> I see ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType not
> setting
> >>> value to Y for the types system having the entities. Also
> >>> PaymentMethodType
> >>> does not have the hasTable attribute.
> >>>
> >>> So I think we should fix both these and no need to have the extra
> field.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rishi Solanki
> >>> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> >>> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> >>> Direct: [phone]
> >>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
> >>> www.hotwax.co
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Arun Patidar
> <arun.patidar@hotwaxsystems.
> >>> com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> Hello All,
> >>>>
> >>>> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that
> detail
> >>>> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on
> the
> >>>> basis of typeId field value.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example :
> >>>>
> >>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
> >>>> PostalAddress for detail.
> >>>>
> >>>> similarly,
> >>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
> >>>> TelecomNumber for detail.
> >>>>
> >>>> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the
> basis
> >>>>
> >>> of
> >>>
> >>>> typeId value?
> >>>>
> >>>> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the
> pattern.
> >>>> Some of them are:
> >>>>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
> >>>>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
> >>>>
> >>>> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name
> of
> >>>> detail entity.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Thanks & Regards
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Arun Patidar
> >>>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> >>>>
> >>>> HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.
> >>>>
> >>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
>

[Rishi Solanki]

Yes!

Thank you Arun for bringing/reporting this and summarize. Agree with you on
we may need to update the existing entities/data as per convention.

Rishi Solanki
Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: [phone]
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Arun Patidar <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks Michael and Rishi for your feedback.  If we follow the proper
> convention with TypeId and entity name then there is no issue. But the case
> is that there is some inconsistency in existing entities. We will have to
> fix some of the existing entities as per convention.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> ---
> Arun Patidar
> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>
> HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.
>
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Rishi Solanki <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Michael,
> >
> > I'm also in favor of using id and description fields suggest the entity
> > name. Existing model is capable to to resolve the reported issue if we
> > follow the conventions.
> >
> > Rishi Solanki
> > Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > Direct: [phone]
> > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
> > www.hotwax.co
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Michael Brohl <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -1 from my side, I think we can solve this by convention instead of
> > > introducing a new field.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 01.09.17 um 15:53 schrieb Vaibhav Jain:
> > >
> > > +1 for introducing new attribute "tableName".
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Vaibhav Jain
> > >> Hotwax Systems,
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Rishi Solanki <
> [hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure this one is best practice or not, but it should be
> follow.
> > We
> > >>> should try to name the type same as entity name.
> > >>> Other examples;
> > >>> - PartyTpe >> PERSON and PARTY_GROUP
> > >>> - PaymentMethodType >> CREDIT_CARD, FIN_ACCOUNT, EFT_ACCOUNT,
> GIFT_CARD
> > >>> etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> IMO, best practice is to have the hasTable attribute in the entity.
> > Also
> > >>> if
> > >>> its entity exists then value must be Y.
> > >>>
> > >>> I see ShipmentGatewayConfigType and PaymentGatewayConfigType not
> > setting
> > >>> value to Y for the types system having the entities. Also
> > >>> PaymentMethodType
> > >>> does not have the hasTable attribute.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I think we should fix both these and no need to have the extra
> > field.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Rishi Solanki
> > >>> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> > >>> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> > >>> Direct: [phone]
> > >>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
> > >>> www.hotwax.co
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Arun Patidar
> > <arun.patidar@hotwaxsystems.
> > >>> com
> > >>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> Hello All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 'hasTable' field of 'Type' entities is used to give an idea that
> > detail
> > >>>> entity exists or not. We generally get the name of detail entity on
> > the
> > >>>> basis of typeId field value.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For example :
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "POSTAL_ADDRESS"  then we go to
> > >>>> PostalAddress for detail.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> similarly,
> > >>>> ContactMechType,contactMechTypeId = "TELECOM_NUMBER"  then we go to
> > >>>> TelecomNumber for detail.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> is it a best practice to identify the name of detail entity on the
> > basis
> > >>>>
> > >>> of
> > >>>
> > >>>> typeId value?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If yes, then there are some entities that are not following the
> > pattern.
> > >>>> Some of them are:
> > >>>>     - ShipmentGatewayConfigType
> > >>>>     - PaymentGatewayConfigType
> > >>>>
> > >>>> if not, then we can add a field in Type entities to mention the name
> > of
> > >>>> detail entity.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please let me know your thoughts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Thanks & Regards
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> Arun Patidar
> > >>>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> > >>>>
> > >>>> HotWax Systems Pvt Ltd.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>