Help with POS behaviour
Locked
 
|
If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always
seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select CASH, CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, "payment" is actually a refund). Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account - CASH IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for whatever "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD SUPPLIER for a CREDIT CARD refund). Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH in POS, so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further downstream that is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as a cash transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at straws :-) Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose debugging in POS - setting the global verbose flag in framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the trick. Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/2006 |
Administrator
|
Iain,
Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the moment) verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in PosTransaction.java. For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look ASAP... Jacques ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Fogg" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM Subject: Help with POS behaviour > If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always > seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select CASH, > CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, "payment" is > actually a refund). > > Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account - CASH > IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for whatever > "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD SUPPLIER > for a CREDIT CARD refund). > > Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH in POS, > so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further downstream that > is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as a cash > transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at straws :-) > > Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose debugging in POS > - setting the global verbose flag in > framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the trick. > > Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/2006 |
|
|
Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any support
for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work around rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I would not rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a negative quantity and price in the order. The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was originally done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that have hopefully been exposed during the order manager development. Ray Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Iain, > > Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the moment) verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in PosTransaction.java. > > For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look ASAP... > > Jacques > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Iain Fogg" <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM > Subject: Help with POS behaviour > > > >> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always >> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select CASH, >> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, "payment" is >> actually a refund). >> >> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account - CASH >> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for whatever >> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD SUPPLIER >> for a CREDIT CARD refund). >> >> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH in POS, >> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further downstream that >> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as a cash >> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at straws :-) >> >> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose debugging in POS >> - setting the global verbose flag in >> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the trick. >> >> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/2006 >> > > |
|
Administrator
|
Iain, Ray,
Yes, I think that Ray is in the truth even if I did look at it seriously... I will try tomorrow... Jacques From: "Ray Barlow" <[hidden email]> > Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any support > for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work around > rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I would not > rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a > negative quantity and price in the order. > > The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really > exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was originally > done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually > recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that have > hopefully been exposed during the order manager development. > > Ray > > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > Iain, > > > > Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the moment) verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in > > > > For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look ASAP... > > > > Jacques > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Iain Fogg" <[hidden email]> > > To: <[hidden email]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM > > Subject: Help with POS behaviour > > > > > > > >> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always > >> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select CASH, > >> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, "payment" is > >> actually a refund). > >> > >> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account - CASH > >> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for whatever > >> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD SUPPLIER > >> for a CREDIT CARD refund). > >> > >> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH in POS, > >> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further downstream that > >> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as a cash > >> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at straws :-) > >> > >> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose debugging in POS > >> - setting the global verbose flag in > >> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the trick. > >> > >> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this outgoing message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/2006 > >> > > > > |
|
|
Ray, Jacques,
I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor the code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up against a hard go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too much to do in the time available. Based on my testing, POS seems to handle most things for basic sales and returns well enough. Specifically, it calculates the right $ values (including taxes), updates inventory properly, and hooks into the accounting ECAs with the following exceptions (there might be more but I don't know about them): 1. Refunds don't credit the correct default GL account (ie, the issue that prompted this request for help) 2. The INVENTORY and COGS accounts don't get updated. A while back Si said that this was because the INVENT/COGS updates were triggered off an ItemIssuance and presumably POS isn't doing this. However, I looked through some trace last night and there is definitely a call to one of the ItemIssuance services so I'm not sure what's going on. I'll try to look at this ASAP... Thanks for the input on this, and if you've any other pearls of wisdom to share, feel free to continue the thread :-) Cheers, Iain Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Iain, Ray, > > Yes, I think that Ray is in the truth even if I did look at it seriously... I will try tomorrow... > > Jacques > > From: "Ray Barlow" <[hidden email]> > >> Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any support >> for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work around >> rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I would not >> rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a >> negative quantity and price in the order. >> >> The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really >> exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was originally >> done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually >> recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that have >> hopefully been exposed during the order manager development. >> >> Ray >> >> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >>> Iain, >>> >>> Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the moment) verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in >>> > PosTransaction.java. > >>> For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look ASAP... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Iain Fogg" <[hidden email]> >>> To: <[hidden email]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM >>> Subject: Help with POS behaviour >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always >>>> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select CASH, >>>> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, "payment" is >>>> actually a refund). >>>> >>>> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account - CASH >>>> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for whatever >>>> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD SUPPLIER >>>> for a CREDIT CARD refund). >>>> >>>> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH in POS, >>>> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further downstream that >>>> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as a cash >>>> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at straws :-) >>>> >>>> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose debugging in POS >>>> - setting the global verbose flag in >>>> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the trick. >>>> >>>> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/2006 >>>> >>>> >>> > > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date: 29/11/2006 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Iain Fogg
Hi ,
Should view-entity create views in the database. I do not see any views in the database ( oracle ). Chand |
|
Administrator
|
No it don't, it's on the fly
Jacques From: "Chandresh Turakhia" <[hidden email]> > Hi , > > Should view-entity create views in the database. > > I do not see any views in the database ( oracle ). > > Chand |
|
|
http://incubator.apache.org/ofbiz/docs/entity.html#View_Entity_Modeling On Nov 30, 2006, at 12:29 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > No it don't, it's on the fly > > Jacques > > From: "Chandresh Turakhia" <[hidden email]> >> Hi , >> >> Should view-entity create views in the database. >> >> I do not see any views in the database ( oracle ). >> >> Chand |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
Chandresh,
If you want to see the view-entities you can take a look into Webtools --> Entity Data Maintenance page. Regards Ashish Vijaywargiya --- Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]> wrote: > No it don't, it's on the fly > > Jacques > > From: "Chandresh Turakhia" > <[hidden email]> > > Hi , > > > > Should view-entity create views in the database. > > > > I do not see any views in the database ( oracle ). > > > > Chand > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Iain Fogg
Progress on the problem with POS incorrectly creditting the CASH account
regardless of which payment type was used to process a customer refund... It seems processAmount in PaymentEvents.java behaves differently depending on whether you enter the amount to be refunded vs letting the system default to the value of the sale (refund). In the former case, the defect I have described does not exist (ie, the correct GL account gets updated on a refund). In the latter case, the behaviour defaults to posting transactions to the CASH-related accounts. This happens because processAmount treats a negative sale total as an exception when you don't provide an explicit value. Whether or not this is the right thing is debatable, but what is not debatable is that a negative value should be treated the same regardless whether it is supplied or generated. Therefore, to get me past one of my hurdles I simply made processAmount treat negative values as valid values. I don't have access to my local svn on this system so I've included the relevant change below... Looking closer at the POS handling of refunds, there is another painful deficiency (which would be solved by Ray's suggestion to re-implement using the Returns services - POS does not trigger the appropriate services to increase inventory when a product is returned/refunded. private static double processAmount(PosTransaction trans, PosScreen pos, String amountStr) throws GeneralException { Input input = pos.getInput(); if (input.isFunctionSet("TOTAL")) { String amtStr = amountStr != null ? amountStr : input.value(); double amount; if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(amtStr)) { try { amount = Double.parseDouble(amtStr); } catch (NumberFormatException e) { Debug.logError("Invalid number for amount : " + amtStr, module); pos.getOutput().print("Invalid Amount!"); input.clearInput(); throw new GeneralException(); } amount = amount / 100; // convert to decimal Debug.log("Set amount / 100 : " + amount, module); } else { Debug.log("Amount is empty; assumption is full amount : " + trans.getTotalDue(), module); amount = trans.getTotalDue(); // COMMENT OUT THE FOLLOWING 3 LINES //if (amount <= 0) { // throw new GeneralException(); //} // END OF COMMENT SECTION } return amount; } else { Debug.log("TOTAL function NOT set", module); throw new GeneralException(); } } } Iain Fogg wrote: > Ray, Jacques, > > I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor the > code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up against a hard > go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too much to do in the > time available. Based on my testing, POS seems to handle most things > for basic sales and returns well enough. Specifically, it calculates > the right $ values (including taxes), updates inventory properly, and > hooks into the accounting ECAs with the following exceptions (there > might be more but I don't know about them): > > 1. Refunds don't credit the correct default GL account (ie, the issue > that prompted this request for help) > 2. The INVENTORY and COGS accounts don't get updated. A while back Si > said that this was because the INVENT/COGS updates were triggered off > an ItemIssuance and presumably POS isn't doing this. However, I looked > through some trace last night and there is definitely a call to one of > the ItemIssuance services so I'm not sure what's going on. I'll try to > look at this ASAP... > > Thanks for the input on this, and if you've any other pearls of wisdom > to share, feel free to continue the thread :-) > > Cheers, Iain > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> Iain, Ray, >> >> Yes, I think that Ray is in the truth even if I did look at it >> seriously... I will try tomorrow... >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "Ray Barlow" <[hidden email]> >> >>> Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any support >>> for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work around >>> rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I would >>> not >>> rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a >>> negative quantity and price in the order. >>> >>> The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really >>> exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was originally >>> done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually >>> recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that have >>> hopefully been exposed during the order manager development. >>> >>> Ray >>> >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>>> Iain, >>>> >>>> Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the moment) >>>> verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in >>>> >> PosTransaction.java. >> >>>> For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look ASAP... >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Fogg" >>>> <[hidden email]> >>>> To: <[hidden email]> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM >>>> Subject: Help with POS behaviour >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always >>>>> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select >>>>> CASH, >>>>> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, >>>>> "payment" is >>>>> actually a refund). >>>>> >>>>> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account - >>>>> CASH >>>>> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for >>>>> whatever >>>>> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD SUPPLIER >>>>> for a CREDIT CARD refund). >>>>> >>>>> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH >>>>> in POS, >>>>> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further downstream >>>>> that >>>>> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as a >>>>> cash >>>>> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at >>>>> straws :-) >>>>> >>>>> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose debugging >>>>> in POS >>>>> - setting the global verbose flag in >>>>> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the trick. >>>>> >>>>> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: >>>>> 28/11/2006 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date: 29/11/2006 |
|
|
I take it back - the inventory (ATP/QOH) is correctly updated for sales
and refunds in POS - Iain Iain Fogg wrote: > Progress on the problem with POS incorrectly creditting the CASH > account regardless of which payment type was used to process a > customer refund... > > It seems processAmount in PaymentEvents.java behaves differently > depending on whether you enter the amount to be refunded vs letting > the system default to the value of the sale (refund). In the former > case, the defect I have described does not exist (ie, the correct GL > account gets updated on a refund). In the latter case, the behaviour > defaults to posting transactions to the CASH-related accounts. This > happens because processAmount treats a negative sale total as an > exception when you don't provide an explicit value. Whether or not > this is the right thing is debatable, but what is not debatable is > that a negative value should be treated the same regardless whether it > is supplied or generated. Therefore, to get me past one of my hurdles > I simply made processAmount treat negative values as valid values. > > I don't have access to my local svn on this system so I've included > the relevant change below... > > Looking closer at the POS handling of refunds, there is another > painful deficiency (which would be solved by Ray's suggestion to > re-implement using the Returns services - POS does not trigger the > appropriate services to increase inventory when a product is > returned/refunded. > > private static double processAmount(PosTransaction trans, PosScreen > pos, String amountStr) throws GeneralException { > Input input = pos.getInput(); > > if (input.isFunctionSet("TOTAL")) { > String amtStr = amountStr != null ? amountStr : input.value(); > double amount; > if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(amtStr)) { > try { > amount = Double.parseDouble(amtStr); > } catch (NumberFormatException e) { > Debug.logError("Invalid number for amount : " + > amtStr, module); > pos.getOutput().print("Invalid Amount!"); > input.clearInput(); > throw new GeneralException(); > } > amount = amount / 100; // convert to decimal > Debug.log("Set amount / 100 : " + amount, module); > } else { > Debug.log("Amount is empty; assumption is full amount : > " + trans.getTotalDue(), module); > amount = trans.getTotalDue(); > // COMMENT OUT THE FOLLOWING 3 LINES > //if (amount <= 0) { > // throw new GeneralException(); > //} > // END OF COMMENT SECTION > } > return amount; > } else { > Debug.log("TOTAL function NOT set", module); > throw new GeneralException(); > } > } > } > > Iain Fogg wrote: >> Ray, Jacques, >> >> I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor the >> code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up against a >> hard go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too much to do in >> the time available. Based on my testing, POS seems to handle most >> things for basic sales and returns well enough. Specifically, it >> calculates the right $ values (including taxes), updates inventory >> properly, and hooks into the accounting ECAs with the following >> exceptions (there might be more but I don't know about them): >> >> 1. Refunds don't credit the correct default GL account (ie, the issue >> that prompted this request for help) >> 2. The INVENTORY and COGS accounts don't get updated. A while back Si >> said that this was because the INVENT/COGS updates were triggered off >> an ItemIssuance and presumably POS isn't doing this. However, I >> looked through some trace last night and there is definitely a call >> to one of the ItemIssuance services so I'm not sure what's going on. >> I'll try to look at this ASAP... >> >> Thanks for the input on this, and if you've any other pearls of >> wisdom to share, feel free to continue the thread :-) >> >> Cheers, Iain >> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> Iain, Ray, >>> >>> Yes, I think that Ray is in the truth even if I did look at it >>> seriously... I will try tomorrow... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Ray Barlow" <[hidden email]> >>> >>>> Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any >>>> support >>>> for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work around >>>> rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I >>>> would not >>>> rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a >>>> negative quantity and price in the order. >>>> >>>> The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really >>>> exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was originally >>>> done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually >>>> recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that have >>>> hopefully been exposed during the order manager development. >>>> >>>> Ray >>>> >>>> >>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> >>>>> Iain, >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the moment) >>>>> verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in >>>>> >>> PosTransaction.java. >>> >>>>> For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look ASAP... >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Fogg" >>>>> <[hidden email]> >>>>> To: <[hidden email]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM >>>>> Subject: Help with POS behaviour >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always >>>>>> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select >>>>>> CASH, >>>>>> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, >>>>>> "payment" is >>>>>> actually a refund). >>>>>> >>>>>> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account >>>>>> - CASH >>>>>> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for >>>>>> whatever >>>>>> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD >>>>>> SUPPLIER >>>>>> for a CREDIT CARD refund). >>>>>> >>>>>> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH >>>>>> in POS, >>>>>> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further downstream >>>>>> that >>>>>> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as a >>>>>> cash >>>>>> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at >>>>>> straws :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose debugging >>>>>> in POS >>>>>> - setting the global verbose flag in >>>>>> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the trick. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: >>>>>> 28/11/2006 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date: 29/11/2006 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Iain Fogg
Understandable you don't want to do proper returns now, we are all
constrained by time so some things have to wait. Yes debatable on whether it should handle negatives but I would agree it should be consist for both supplied/generated. Re inventory and returns you don't always want to do an increase especially for faulty goods which usually result in credit notes from the manufacturer. Sorry just another little area the POS "returns" feature falls short, but it will get there some day if we keep going on it... Ray Iain Fogg wrote: > Progress on the problem with POS incorrectly creditting the CASH > account regardless of which payment type was used to process a > customer refund... > > It seems processAmount in PaymentEvents.java behaves differently > depending on whether you enter the amount to be refunded vs letting > the system default to the value of the sale (refund). In the former > case, the defect I have described does not exist (ie, the correct GL > account gets updated on a refund). In the latter case, the behaviour > defaults to posting transactions to the CASH-related accounts. This > happens because processAmount treats a negative sale total as an > exception when you don't provide an explicit value. Whether or not > this is the right thing is debatable, but what is not debatable is > that a negative value should be treated the same regardless whether it > is supplied or generated. Therefore, to get me past one of my hurdles > I simply made processAmount treat negative values as valid values. > > I don't have access to my local svn on this system so I've included > the relevant change below... > > Looking closer at the POS handling of refunds, there is another > painful deficiency (which would be solved by Ray's suggestion to > re-implement using the Returns services - POS does not trigger the > appropriate services to increase inventory when a product is > returned/refunded. > > private static double processAmount(PosTransaction trans, PosScreen > pos, String amountStr) throws GeneralException { > Input input = pos.getInput(); > > if (input.isFunctionSet("TOTAL")) { > String amtStr = amountStr != null ? amountStr : input.value(); > double amount; > if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(amtStr)) { > try { > amount = Double.parseDouble(amtStr); > } catch (NumberFormatException e) { > Debug.logError("Invalid number for amount : " + > amtStr, module); > pos.getOutput().print("Invalid Amount!"); > input.clearInput(); > throw new GeneralException(); > } > amount = amount / 100; // convert to decimal > Debug.log("Set amount / 100 : " + amount, module); > } else { > Debug.log("Amount is empty; assumption is full amount : > " + trans.getTotalDue(), module); > amount = trans.getTotalDue(); > // COMMENT OUT THE FOLLOWING 3 LINES > //if (amount <= 0) { > // throw new GeneralException(); > //} > // END OF COMMENT SECTION > } > return amount; > } else { > Debug.log("TOTAL function NOT set", module); > throw new GeneralException(); > } > } > } > > Iain Fogg wrote: >> Ray, Jacques, >> >> I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor the >> code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up against a >> hard go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too much to do in >> the time available. Based on my testing, POS seems to handle most >> things for basic sales and returns well enough. Specifically, it >> calculates the right $ values (including taxes), updates inventory >> properly, and hooks into the accounting ECAs with the following >> exceptions (there might be more but I don't know about them): |
|
|
Ray,
You're right about the handling of the return. In fact, while it appears that the current implementation adjusts the inventory correctly, it doesn't. Specifically, it creates a new InventoryItem for the return, but sets the unitPrice to 0.0. Assuming I keep the item in inventory (no damage etc), the a future sale will chew up that inventory item, but the accounts will not be debited/credited correctly since the unitPrice is 0.0. That's just one problem I spotted - I expect there are more. BTW, I have done some testing with OrderReturns in the OrderMgr, but I seem to recall having some trouble with that, especially for cash/offline CC refund methods. I'll have to investigate further to see if it was user error or not. Cheers, Iain Cheers, Iain Ray Barlow wrote: > Understandable you don't want to do proper returns now, we are all > constrained by time so some things have to wait. Yes debatable on > whether it should handle negatives but I would agree it should be > consist for both supplied/generated. > > Re inventory and returns you don't always want to do an increase > especially for faulty goods which usually result in credit notes from > the manufacturer. Sorry just another little area the POS "returns" > feature falls short, but it will get there some day if we keep going on > it... > > Ray > > > Iain Fogg wrote: > >> Progress on the problem with POS incorrectly creditting the CASH >> account regardless of which payment type was used to process a >> customer refund... >> >> It seems processAmount in PaymentEvents.java behaves differently >> depending on whether you enter the amount to be refunded vs letting >> the system default to the value of the sale (refund). In the former >> case, the defect I have described does not exist (ie, the correct GL >> account gets updated on a refund). In the latter case, the behaviour >> defaults to posting transactions to the CASH-related accounts. This >> happens because processAmount treats a negative sale total as an >> exception when you don't provide an explicit value. Whether or not >> this is the right thing is debatable, but what is not debatable is >> that a negative value should be treated the same regardless whether it >> is supplied or generated. Therefore, to get me past one of my hurdles >> I simply made processAmount treat negative values as valid values. >> >> I don't have access to my local svn on this system so I've included >> the relevant change below... >> >> Looking closer at the POS handling of refunds, there is another >> painful deficiency (which would be solved by Ray's suggestion to >> re-implement using the Returns services - POS does not trigger the >> appropriate services to increase inventory when a product is >> returned/refunded. >> >> private static double processAmount(PosTransaction trans, PosScreen >> pos, String amountStr) throws GeneralException { >> Input input = pos.getInput(); >> >> if (input.isFunctionSet("TOTAL")) { >> String amtStr = amountStr != null ? amountStr : input.value(); >> double amount; >> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(amtStr)) { >> try { >> amount = Double.parseDouble(amtStr); >> } catch (NumberFormatException e) { >> Debug.logError("Invalid number for amount : " + >> amtStr, module); >> pos.getOutput().print("Invalid Amount!"); >> input.clearInput(); >> throw new GeneralException(); >> } >> amount = amount / 100; // convert to decimal >> Debug.log("Set amount / 100 : " + amount, module); >> } else { >> Debug.log("Amount is empty; assumption is full amount : >> " + trans.getTotalDue(), module); >> amount = trans.getTotalDue(); >> // COMMENT OUT THE FOLLOWING 3 LINES >> //if (amount <= 0) { >> // throw new GeneralException(); >> //} >> // END OF COMMENT SECTION >> } >> return amount; >> } else { >> Debug.log("TOTAL function NOT set", module); >> throw new GeneralException(); >> } >> } >> } >> >> Iain Fogg wrote: >> >>> Ray, Jacques, >>> >>> I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor the >>> code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up against a >>> hard go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too much to do in >>> the time available. Based on my testing, POS seems to handle most >>> things for basic sales and returns well enough. Specifically, it >>> calculates the right $ values (including taxes), updates inventory >>> properly, and hooks into the accounting ECAs with the following >>> exceptions (there might be more but I don't know about them): >>> > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date: 29/11/2006 |
|
|
In reply to this post by David E Jones-2
Chand,
What are you trying to accomplish, perhaps we can describe a work around for you. David, No matter how many times you link to that excellent write-up, it does not answer that question. --- David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote: > > http://incubator.apache.org/ofbiz/docs/entity.html#View_Entity_Modeling > > > On Nov 30, 2006, at 12:29 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > No it don't, it's on the fly > > > > Jacques > > > > From: "Chandresh Turakhia" > <[hidden email]> > >> Hi , > >> > >> Should view-entity create views in the database. > >> > >> I do not see any views in the database ( oracle > ). > >> > >> Chand > > |
|
|
On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Chris Howe wrote: > David, > > No matter how many times you link to that excellent > write-up, it does not answer that question. Joins are mentioned various times in that write-up. If you read the whole section I'm not sure how you could miss it. Here is one example copied from that section of that document: "To represent an outer join you can specify in a view-link element that the related entity is optional using the rel-optional attribute, which can be either "true" or "false", and of course defaults to "false". The Entity Engine will generate ANSI, Oracle Theta, or MS SQL Server Theta style join code depending on the setting in the entityengine.xml file. See the Entity Engine Configuration Guide for more information." -David |
|
|
Yes, but the question was...
Should view-entity create views in the database? --- David E Jones <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Chris Howe wrote: > > > David, > > > > No matter how many times you link to that > excellent > > write-up, it does not answer that question. > > Joins are mentioned various times in that write-up. > If you read the > whole section I'm not sure how you could miss it. > Here is one example > copied from that section of that document: > > "To represent an outer join you can specify in a > view-link element > that the related entity is optional using the > rel-optional attribute, > which can be either "true" or "false", and of course > defaults to > "false". The Entity Engine will generate ANSI, > Oracle Theta, or MS > SQL Server Theta style join code depending on the > setting in the > entityengine.xml file. See the Entity Engine > Configuration Guide for > more information." > > -David > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Iain Fogg
Hey Iain, Ray -
How's this going? Have you figured this out, or do you need some help? On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Iain Fogg wrote: > Progress on the problem with POS incorrectly creditting the CASH > account regardless of which payment type was used to process a > customer refund... > > It seems processAmount in PaymentEvents.java behaves differently > depending on whether you enter the amount to be refunded vs letting > the system default to the value of the sale (refund). In the former > case, the defect I have described does not exist (ie, the correct > GL account gets updated on a refund). In the latter case, the > behaviour defaults to posting transactions to the CASH-related > accounts. This happens because processAmount treats a negative sale > total as an exception when you don't provide an explicit value. > Whether or not this is the right thing is debatable, but what is > not debatable is that a negative value should be treated the same > regardless whether it is supplied or generated. Therefore, to get > me past one of my hurdles I simply made processAmount treat > negative values as valid values. > > I don't have access to my local svn on this system so I've included > the relevant change below... > > Looking closer at the POS handling of refunds, there is another > painful deficiency (which would be solved by Ray's suggestion to re- > implement using the Returns services - POS does not trigger the > appropriate services to increase inventory when a product is > returned/refunded. > > private static double processAmount(PosTransaction trans, > PosScreen pos, String amountStr) throws GeneralException { > Input input = pos.getInput(); > > if (input.isFunctionSet("TOTAL")) { > String amtStr = amountStr != null ? amountStr : > input.value(); > double amount; > if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(amtStr)) { > try { > amount = Double.parseDouble(amtStr); > } catch (NumberFormatException e) { > Debug.logError("Invalid number for amount : " + > amtStr, module); > pos.getOutput().print("Invalid Amount!"); > input.clearInput(); > throw new GeneralException(); > } > amount = amount / 100; // convert to decimal > Debug.log("Set amount / 100 : " + amount, module); > } else { > Debug.log("Amount is empty; assumption is full > amount : " + trans.getTotalDue(), module); > amount = trans.getTotalDue(); > // COMMENT OUT THE FOLLOWING 3 LINES > //if (amount <= 0) { > // throw new GeneralException(); > //} > // END OF COMMENT SECTION > } > return amount; > } else { > Debug.log("TOTAL function NOT set", module); > throw new GeneralException(); > } > } > } > > Iain Fogg wrote: >> Ray, Jacques, >> >> I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor >> the code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up >> against a hard go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too >> much to do in the time available. Based on my testing, POS seems >> to handle most things for basic sales and returns well enough. >> Specifically, it calculates the right $ values (including taxes), >> updates inventory properly, and hooks into the accounting ECAs >> with the following exceptions (there might be more but I don't >> know about them): >> >> 1. Refunds don't credit the correct default GL account (ie, the >> issue that prompted this request for help) >> 2. The INVENTORY and COGS accounts don't get updated. A while back >> Si said that this was because the INVENT/COGS updates were >> triggered off an ItemIssuance and presumably POS isn't doing this. >> However, I looked through some trace last night and there is >> definitely a call to one of the ItemIssuance services so I'm not >> sure what's going on. I'll try to look at this ASAP... >> >> Thanks for the input on this, and if you've any other pearls of >> wisdom to share, feel free to continue the thread :-) >> >> Cheers, Iain >> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> Iain, Ray, >>> >>> Yes, I think that Ray is in the truth even if I did look at it >>> seriously... I will try tomorrow... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Ray Barlow" <[hidden email]> >>> >>>> Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any >>>> support >>>> for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work >>>> around >>>> rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I >>>> would not >>>> rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a >>>> negative quantity and price in the order. >>>> >>>> The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really >>>> exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was >>>> originally >>>> done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually >>>> recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that >>>> have >>>> hopefully been exposed during the order manager development. >>>> >>>> Ray >>>> >>>> >>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> >>>>> Iain, >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the >>>>> moment) verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in >>>>> >>> PosTransaction.java. >>> >>>>> For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look >>>>> ASAP... >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Fogg" >>>>> <[hidden email]> >>>>> To: <[hidden email]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM >>>>> Subject: Help with POS behaviour >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it >>>>>> always >>>>>> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you >>>>>> select CASH, >>>>>> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, >>>>>> "payment" is >>>>>> actually a refund). >>>>>> >>>>>> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong >>>>>> account - CASH >>>>>> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for >>>>>> whatever >>>>>> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD >>>>>> SUPPLIER >>>>>> for a CREDIT CARD refund). >>>>>> >>>>>> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to >>>>>> CASH in POS, >>>>>> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further >>>>>> downstream that >>>>>> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled >>>>>> as a cash >>>>>> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at >>>>>> straws :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose >>>>>> debugging in POS >>>>>> - setting the global verbose flag in >>>>>> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the >>>>>> trick. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release >>>>>> Date: 28/11/2006 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date: > 29/11/2006 Best Regards, Si [hidden email] |
|
|
Si,
In the long term, POS will have to be refactored to use the Return services to do this correctly. In the short-term, the fix described below works (at least better than not having the fix). At the very least, negative amounts in POS are now treated consistently. At best, returns/refunds almost work well enough to say you could live with the current implementation for now. The only problem I found was that an inventory item gets created for the returned item, but the unitPrice field was set to 0.0 instead of the (a) supplier's lastPrice. I'll have another look at returns using the Order Manager, but I think the last time I did that there were problems with handling off-line payments. Cheers, Iain Si Chen wrote: > Hey Iain, Ray - > > How's this going? Have you figured this out, or do you need some help? > > On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Iain Fogg wrote: > >> Progress on the problem with POS incorrectly creditting the CASH >> account regardless of which payment type was used to process a >> customer refund... >> >> It seems processAmount in PaymentEvents.java behaves differently >> depending on whether you enter the amount to be refunded vs letting >> the system default to the value of the sale (refund). In the former >> case, the defect I have described does not exist (ie, the correct GL >> account gets updated on a refund). In the latter case, the behaviour >> defaults to posting transactions to the CASH-related accounts. This >> happens because processAmount treats a negative sale total as an >> exception when you don't provide an explicit value. Whether or not >> this is the right thing is debatable, but what is not debatable is >> that a negative value should be treated the same regardless whether >> it is supplied or generated. Therefore, to get me past one of my >> hurdles I simply made processAmount treat negative values as valid >> values. >> >> I don't have access to my local svn on this system so I've included >> the relevant change below... >> >> Looking closer at the POS handling of refunds, there is another >> painful deficiency (which would be solved by Ray's suggestion to >> re-implement using the Returns services - POS does not trigger the >> appropriate services to increase inventory when a product is >> returned/refunded. >> >> private static double processAmount(PosTransaction trans, >> PosScreen pos, String amountStr) throws GeneralException { >> Input input = pos.getInput(); >> >> if (input.isFunctionSet("TOTAL")) { >> String amtStr = amountStr != null ? amountStr : >> input.value(); >> double amount; >> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(amtStr)) { >> try { >> amount = Double.parseDouble(amtStr); >> } catch (NumberFormatException e) { >> Debug.logError("Invalid number for amount : " + >> amtStr, module); >> pos.getOutput().print("Invalid Amount!"); >> input.clearInput(); >> throw new GeneralException(); >> } >> amount = amount / 100; // convert to decimal >> Debug.log("Set amount / 100 : " + amount, module); >> } else { >> Debug.log("Amount is empty; assumption is full amount >> : " + trans.getTotalDue(), module); >> amount = trans.getTotalDue(); >> // COMMENT OUT THE FOLLOWING 3 LINES >> //if (amount <= 0) { >> // throw new GeneralException(); >> //} >> // END OF COMMENT SECTION >> } >> return amount; >> } else { >> Debug.log("TOTAL function NOT set", module); >> throw new GeneralException(); >> } >> } >> } >> >> Iain Fogg wrote: >>> Ray, Jacques, >>> >>> I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor the >>> code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up against a >>> hard go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too much to do in >>> the time available. Based on my testing, POS seems to handle most >>> things for basic sales and returns well enough. Specifically, it >>> calculates the right $ values (including taxes), updates inventory >>> properly, and hooks into the accounting ECAs with the following >>> exceptions (there might be more but I don't know about them): >>> >>> 1. Refunds don't credit the correct default GL account (ie, the >>> issue that prompted this request for help) >>> 2. The INVENTORY and COGS accounts don't get updated. A while back >>> Si said that this was because the INVENT/COGS updates were triggered >>> off an ItemIssuance and presumably POS isn't doing this. However, I >>> looked through some trace last night and there is definitely a call >>> to one of the ItemIssuance services so I'm not sure what's going on. >>> I'll try to look at this ASAP... >>> >>> Thanks for the input on this, and if you've any other pearls of >>> wisdom to share, feel free to continue the thread :-) >>> >>> Cheers, Iain >>> >>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> Iain, Ray, >>>> >>>> Yes, I think that Ray is in the truth even if I did look at it >>>> seriously... I will try tomorrow... >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "Ray Barlow" <[hidden email]> >>>> >>>>> Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any >>>>> support >>>>> for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work around >>>>> rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I >>>>> would not >>>>> rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a >>>>> negative quantity and price in the order. >>>>> >>>>> The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really >>>>> exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was originally >>>>> done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually >>>>> recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that have >>>>> hopefully been exposed during the order manager development. >>>>> >>>>> Ray >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Iain, >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the moment) >>>>>> verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in >>>>>> >>>> PosTransaction.java. >>>> >>>>>> For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look ASAP... >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Fogg" >>>>>> <[hidden email]> >>>>>> To: <[hidden email]> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM >>>>>> Subject: Help with POS behaviour >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always >>>>>>> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select >>>>>>> CASH, >>>>>>> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context, >>>>>>> "payment" is >>>>>>> actually a refund). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account >>>>>>> - CASH >>>>>>> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for >>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD >>>>>>> SUPPLIER >>>>>>> for a CREDIT CARD refund). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH >>>>>>> in POS, >>>>>>> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further >>>>>>> downstream that >>>>>>> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as >>>>>>> a cash >>>>>>> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at >>>>>>> straws :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose >>>>>>> debugging in POS >>>>>>> - setting the global verbose flag in >>>>>>> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the >>>>>>> trick. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>>>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: >>>>>>> 28/11/2006 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> --No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date: >> 29/11/2006 > > Best Regards, > > Si > [hidden email] > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.3/562 - Release Date: 1/12/2006 > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.3/562 - Release Date: 1/12/2006 |
|
|
In reply to this post by cjhowe
Dear all, Quikie question : Where can more info on this ? Keen on pointers for "Oracle Theta" . More interested in generating SQL for Oracle Specific stuff " For Update of " , "Connect by". Went thru code , may be I am missing something : I could not find switch based on database type. Where the does the generator check for the database type Chand "To represent an outer join you can specify in a >> view-link element >> that the related entity is optional using the >> rel-optional attribute, >> which can be either "true" or "false", and of course >> defaults to >> "false". The Entity Engine will generate ANSI, >> Oracle Theta, or MS >> SQL Server Theta style join code depending on the >> setting in the >> entityengine.xml file. See the Entity Engine Configuration Guide for >> more information." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Howe" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:28 AM Subject: Re: Views Ofbiz. > Yes, but the question was... > Should view-entity create views in the database? > > > > --- David E Jones <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> >> On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Chris Howe wrote: >> >> > David, >> > >> > No matter how many times you link to that >> excellent >> > write-up, it does not answer that question. >> >> Joins are mentioned various times in that write-up. >> If you read the >> whole section I'm not sure how you could miss it. >> Here is one example >> copied from that section of that document: >> >> "To represent an outer join you can specify in a >> view-link element >> that the related entity is optional using the >> rel-optional attribute, >> which can be either "true" or "false", and of course >> defaults to >> "false". The Entity Engine will generate ANSI, >> Oracle Theta, or MS >> SQL Server Theta style join code depending on the >> setting in the >> entityengine.xml file. See the Entity Engine >> Configuration Guide for >> more information." >> >> -David >> >> > > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |