Link Party
Locked
 
|
Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does?
An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. Thanks for any input -- Dave Tenerowicz [hidden email] Office: 303.493.6727 Mobile 303.906.6116 Fax 303.814.8330 Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com |
|
|
An IP of each order is recorded.
you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address. this is not infallible but can help. Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM: > Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does? > An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer > records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have > placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that > identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this > !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we > develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to > another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. > > Thanks for any input > |
|
|
When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this will be
useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one. Still not infallible if two users use the same machine. Skip -----Original Message----- From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Link Party An IP of each order is recorded. you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address. this is not infallible but can help. Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM: > Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does? > An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer > records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have > placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that > identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this > !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we > develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to > another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. > > Thanks for any input > |
|
|
The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the same browser with that. See the Visitor table and related functionality. -David skip@theDevers wrote: > When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this will be > useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one. > Still not infallible if two users use the same machine. > > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Link Party > > > An IP of each order is recorded. > you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address. > this is not infallible but can help. > > > Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM: >> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does? >> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer >> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have >> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that >> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this >> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we >> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to >> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. >> >> Thanks for any input >> > |
|
|
What's the usual way to reconcile duplicates in Party(s)? Like if we have multiple Party(s) for
the same person. Perhaps have an administrator click a button that pools together suspected duplicate Party(s)? The administrator can then transfer all related records from one duplicate to another, possibly with audit trails intact too. Sounds like heavy coding work, though. I'll need to handle the above, since there is no way I can prevent a user from creating duplicate Party(s). Or more strictly prevent duplicates in the first place? Maybe I can have like a "3-point comparison" function that decides whether the user is entering duplicate data. I suppose I can dictate that there can be no duplicates in "name and postal code and mobile phone number (plus any other super-personal details)". Jonathon David E Jones wrote: > > The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the same > browser with that. See the Visitor table and related functionality. > > -David > > > skip@theDevers wrote: >> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this >> will be >> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one. >> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine. >> >> Skip >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: Link Party >> >> >> An IP of each order is recorded. >> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address. >> this is not infallible but can help. >> >> >> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM: >>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager >>> does? >>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer >>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have >>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that >>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this >>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we >>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to >>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. >>> >>> Thanks for any input >>> >> > > |
|
|
I think most companies do it by comparing things like name, phone number, address, etc. Not sure where the IP address idea came from... -David Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > What's the usual way to reconcile duplicates in Party(s)? Like if we > have multiple Party(s) for the same person. > > Perhaps have an administrator click a button that pools together > suspected duplicate Party(s)? The administrator can then transfer all > related records from one duplicate to another, possibly with audit > trails intact too. Sounds like heavy coding work, though. > > I'll need to handle the above, since there is no way I can prevent a > user from creating duplicate Party(s). > > Or more strictly prevent duplicates in the first place? Maybe I can have > like a "3-point comparison" function that decides whether the user is > entering duplicate data. I suppose I can dictate that there can be no > duplicates in "name and postal code and mobile phone number (plus any > other super-personal details)". > > Jonathon > > David E Jones wrote: >> >> The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the same >> browser with that. See the Visitor table and related functionality. >> >> -David >> >> >> skip@theDevers wrote: >>> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this >>> will be >>> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one. >>> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine. >>> >>> Skip >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] >>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: Link Party >>> >>> >>> An IP of each order is recorded. >>> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address. >>> this is not infallible but can help. >>> >>> >>> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM: >>>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager >>>> does? >>>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of >>>> customer >>>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have >>>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that >>>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this >>>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we >>>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to >>>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. >>>> >>>> Thanks for any input >>>> >>> >> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by SkipDever
dynamically assigned are usually only 256 so a class c scan is possible.
if the Host is a DHCP server it could have many blocks. a lot of times for fraud checking, the normal data is changed, like name, phone, address. and we have customers that have more than one shipping address, phone so just comparing names can be a problem, like john smith. skip@theDevers sent the following on 9/10/2007 10:42 PM: > When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this will be > useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one. > Still not infallible if two users use the same machine. > > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Link Party > > > An IP of each order is recorded. > you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address. > this is not infallible but can help. > > > Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM: >> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party Manager does? >> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of customer >> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have >> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that >> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt this >> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we >> develop a service that will assign all records related to one party to >> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. >> >> Thanks for any input >> > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by jonwimp
I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer. Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be more generic one. |
|
|
I did a pre-check (via SECA) that also asks for confirmation when a possible duplicate is detected.
But like I said, I just can't absolutely prevent users from entering duplicates! Yes, the pre-check does help reduce instances of duplicates, since users are reminded about already existing records. At some point, we still need to reconcile duplicates caused by human error. I'm interested in this particular process. The case in discussion sounds like it has something to do with checkouts from ecommerce, where anonymous shoppers create multiple userLogins. No way we can tell the anonymous shopper this: "Hi, there's somebody else named Blah Bleh in our database. We'll show you all his details so you can kindly confirm if that is really you?" Jonathon Bilgin Ibryam wrote: > > I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer > entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking > some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to > require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer. > > Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be > more generic one. |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Bilgin Ibryam
Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of party duplicates coming from eCommerce.
An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting too... Jacques De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <[hidden email]> > > > I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer > entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking > some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to > require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer. > > Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be > more generic one. > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663 > Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
|
|
In reply to this post by jonwimp
Sorry, i didnot get that it was related for ecommerce duplicate entries. I need to prevent backend (mostly party manager) duplicate entries. And in this situation a warning generated from a seca precheck will be enough. I should go this way.
Thanks |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't come from eCommerce, BUT
still... I'm not gonna prompt users about possible duplicates when they enter data (want to accelerate initial data entry effort). I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to periodically reconcile duplicate Party(s). Will be doing it soon. Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking "name, postal code, birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my application mandates the entry of birthdate, not so for ecommerce apps. Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce side? Thanks. Jonathon Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of party duplicates coming from eCommerce. > > An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting too... > > Jacques > > De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <[hidden email]> >> >> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer >> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking >> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to >> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer. >> >> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be >> more generic one. >> -- >> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663 >> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > |
|
|
in the application I wrote for accepting real-time orders from a
website, I have a service that is run to check different parms in the IP and address fields. It then sets the order to hold status if there are matches to the parms. this shows up in the order task list to be dealt with by a human. Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 9/11/2007 7:29 AM: > Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't > come from eCommerce, BUT still... I'm not gonna prompt users about > possible duplicates when they enter data (want to accelerate initial > data entry effort). > > I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to > periodically reconcile duplicate Party(s). Will be doing it soon. > > Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking > "name, postal code, birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my > application mandates the entry of birthdate, not so for ecommerce apps. > Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce side? > > Thanks. > > Jonathon > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of >> party duplicates coming from eCommerce. >> >> An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting >> too... >> >> Jacques >> >> De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <[hidden email]> >>> >>> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate >>> person/customer >>> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for >>> checking >>> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the >>> DB to >>> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer. >>> >>> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? >>> May be >>> more generic one. >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663 >>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by jonwimp
I'll have the same duplicate removal requirement and am happy to split the
workload. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:30 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Link Party Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't come from eCommerce, BUT still... I'm not gonna prompt users about possible duplicates when they enter data (want to accelerate initial data entry effort). I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to periodically reconcile duplicate Party(s). Will be doing it soon. Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking "name, postal code, birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my application mandates the entry of birthdate, not so for ecommerce apps. Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce side? Thanks. Jonathon Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of party duplicates coming from eCommerce. > > An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting too... > > Jacques > > De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <[hidden email]> >> >> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer >> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking >> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to >> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer. >> >> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be >> more generic one. >> -- >> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663 >> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by jonwimp
I have the same needs for duplicate checker and am happy to split the
workload. Skip -----Original Message----- From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:30 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Link Party Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't come from eCommerce, BUT still... I'm not gonna prompt users about possible duplicates when they enter data (want to accelerate initial data entry effort). I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to periodically reconcile duplicate Party(s). Will be doing it soon. Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking "name, postal code, birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my application mandates the entry of birthdate, not so for ecommerce apps. Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce side? Thanks. Jonathon Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of party duplicates coming from eCommerce. > > An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting too... > > Jacques > > De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <[hidden email]> >> >> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate person/customer >> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for checking >> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the DB to >> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer. >> >> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? May be >> more generic one. >> -- >> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663 >> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by BJ Freeman
For the ecommerce side of things? Nice. Sort of like flagging possible duplicates for backend
handling. Jonathon BJ Freeman wrote: > in the application I wrote for accepting real-time orders from a > website, I have a service that is run to check different parms in the IP > and address fields. It then sets the order to hold status if there are > matches to the parms. > this shows up in the order task list to be dealt with by a human. > > Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 9/11/2007 7:29 AM: >> Hmm. My very next project absolutely requires that. The duplicates don't >> come from eCommerce, BUT still... I'm not gonna prompt users about >> possible duplicates when they enter data (want to accelerate initial >> data entry effort). >> >> I'll need a webtool for the admin (or other permitted parties) to >> periodically reconcile duplicate Party(s). Will be doing it soon. >> >> Let me know what criteria should be checked? So far, I'm just thinking >> "name, postal code, birthdate, mobile phone number". Note that my >> application mandates the entry of birthdate, not so for ecommerce apps. >> Help me do something that is also usable by ecommerce side? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jonathon >> >> Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> Yes this sounds interesting, to me at least. There is always plenty of >>> party duplicates coming from eCommerce. >>> >>> An administrator webtool as suggested by Jonathon may be interesting >>> too... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> De : "Bilgin Ibryam" <[hidden email]> >>>> I also have the same need and idea for preventing duplicate >>>> person/customer >>>> entries but still no time for it. My idea was to write an event for >>>> checking >>>> some key fields like Jonathon said and if they already exist in the >>>> DB to >>>> require a confirmation before recording(duplicating) the new customer. >>>> >>>> Is it a good idea to have such a mechanism for precheck in ofbiz ? >>>> May be >>>> more generic one. >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://www.nabble.com/Link-Party-tf4418931.html#a12612663 >>>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by David E Jones
Yes, that's what we'll be doing.
IP address and visitorId would not be useful, since (in Phase 1) this is strictly an order taking function via sales reps- so there is no party specific IP address or visitorId. Thanks for the suggestions though! I gather that the Link function would offer no benefit for this, since no one has mentioned it?? -Dave David E Jones wrote: > > I think most companies do it by comparing things like name, phone > number, address, etc. > > Not sure where the IP address idea came from... > > -David > > > Jonathon -- Improov wrote: >> What's the usual way to reconcile duplicates in Party(s)? Like if we >> have multiple Party(s) for the same person. >> >> Perhaps have an administrator click a button that pools together >> suspected duplicate Party(s)? The administrator can then transfer all >> related records from one duplicate to another, possibly with audit >> trails intact too. Sounds like heavy coding work, though. >> >> I'll need to handle the above, since there is no way I can prevent a >> user from creating duplicate Party(s). >> >> Or more strictly prevent duplicates in the first place? Maybe I can >> have like a "3-point comparison" function that decides whether the >> user is entering duplicate data. I suppose I can dictate that there >> can be no duplicates in "name and postal code and mobile phone number >> (plus any other super-personal details)". >> >> Jonathon >> >> David E Jones wrote: >>> >>> The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the >>> same browser with that. See the Visitor table and related >>> functionality. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> skip@theDevers wrote: >>>> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this >>>> will be >>>> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one. >>>> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine. >>>> >>>> Skip >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM >>>> To: [hidden email] >>>> Subject: Re: Link Party >>>> >>>> >>>> An IP of each order is recorded. >>>> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address. >>>> this is not infallible but can help. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM: >>>>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party >>>>> Manager does? >>>>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of >>>>> customer >>>>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have >>>>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that >>>>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt >>>>> this >>>>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we >>>>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one >>>>> party to >>>>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for any input >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Dave Tenerowicz [hidden email] Office: 303.493.6727 Mobile 303.906.6116 Fax 303.814.8330 Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com |
|
|
IMO, the problem with "mere linkage" is that there'd be so many scattered pieces of data to stitch
together. Data retrieval or traversal will get a little heavy. Might be better to simply reconcile duplicate Party(s) into one Party, and drop the duplicates thereafter. That said, I think the Link function can still work very nicely as an interim measure. Or even as a permanent measure, if you don't mind having to keep track of scattered pieces of data. One possible snag is when you perform a "lookup" function, say like "Find all Party(s) with name like Blah". Your "lookup" function must consider linked Party(s) (aka duplicates), and NOT return those results. Jonathon Dave Tenerowicz wrote: > Yes, that's what we'll be doing. > IP address and visitorId would not be useful, since (in Phase 1) this is > strictly an order taking function via sales reps- so there is no party > specific IP address or visitorId. > Thanks for the suggestions though! > > I gather that the Link function would offer no benefit for this, since > no one has mentioned it?? > > -Dave > > David E Jones wrote: >> >> I think most companies do it by comparing things like name, phone >> number, address, etc. >> >> Not sure where the IP address idea came from... >> >> -David >> >> >> Jonathon -- Improov wrote: >>> What's the usual way to reconcile duplicates in Party(s)? Like if we >>> have multiple Party(s) for the same person. >>> >>> Perhaps have an administrator click a button that pools together >>> suspected duplicate Party(s)? The administrator can then transfer all >>> related records from one duplicate to another, possibly with audit >>> trails intact too. Sounds like heavy coding work, though. >>> >>> I'll need to handle the above, since there is no way I can prevent a >>> user from creating duplicate Party(s). >>> >>> Or more strictly prevent duplicates in the first place? Maybe I can >>> have like a "3-point comparison" function that decides whether the >>> user is entering duplicate data. I suppose I can dictate that there >>> can be no duplicates in "name and postal code and mobile phone number >>> (plus any other super-personal details)". >>> >>> Jonathon >>> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> The visitorId may be more reliable... at least you know it's the >>>> same browser with that. See the Visitor table and related >>>> functionality. >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> skip@theDevers wrote: >>>>> When IP addresses are typically assigned dynamically, I doubt this >>>>> will be >>>>> useful. Better to store a back resolved host name if you can get one. >>>>> Still not infallible if two users use the same machine. >>>>> >>>>> Skip >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:22 PM >>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>> Subject: Re: Link Party >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An IP of each order is recorded. >>>>> you may be able to have a service the links orders by iP address. >>>>> this is not infallible but can help. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 9/10/2007 3:03 PM: >>>>>> Can anyone tell me what the Link Party function under Party >>>>>> Manager does? >>>>>> An implementation we are doing includes a significant number of >>>>>> customer >>>>>> records that are duplicates. In these cases the same party may have >>>>>> placed Orders under different partyId's. The client claims that >>>>>> identification of duplicates can only be done by humans( I doubt >>>>>> this >>>>>> !!, but that is another story). What they have requested is that we >>>>>> develop a service that will assign all records related to one >>>>>> party to >>>>>> another partyId. I am wondering if Link Party can be leveraged here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for any input >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 5:46 PM |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |