David E Jones wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> It appears to me that there is a one-to-one relationship between a
>> fixed asset maintenance and a work effort to perform the maintenance.
>> Wouldn't it be better if there was a one-to-many relationship?
>>
>> Let's say I have a company truck fixed asset. I set up two
>> maintenances for it: oil change every 5000 miles and tire rotation
>> every 10000 miles. As I enter odometer readings in the Meter Reading
>> section, the maintenances should generate oil change and tire rotation
>> work efforts when the maintenance interval is passed.
>
> If I remember right the intent of the maintenance records is to have one
> for each part that must be maintained. In this case there would be one
> maintenance for the oil change and another for the tire rotation, even
> though they happen at the same intervals.
Sorta like that. Two maintenances, different intervals.
> I I understand you right the constraint you are looking at is the
> ProductMaint.maintTemplateWorkEffortId field that refers to a single
> WorkEffort, and you would like to have more than one WorkEffort
> associated with the ProductMaint record. On a side note, the
> relationship from ProductMaint to WorkEffort is many-to-one (as opposed
> to a one-to-one, meaning they would have the same primary key) because
> there can be many ProductMaint records for a single WorkEffort record.
> You are proposing to make it a many-to-many relatonship, which means a
> join entity to go between them would be needed.
I wasn't referring to the entities - I was referring to the concept. It
looks that way to me based upon how the component operates.
> One thing to keep in mind: the way WorkEfforts are designed a single
> WorkEffort as a task or whatever can have various sub-WorkEfforts
> associated with it.
Then there would have to be code to create sub tasks when intervals are
passed. That seems like unnecessary complication to me, but I'll check
into it.
-Adrian
Locked
