Possible Party Relationship Problem?
Locked
Possible Party Relationship Problem?
 
|
Re: Possible Party Relationship Problem?
|
|
Re: Possible Party Relationship Problem?
|
|
On 18/12/2009, at 12:15 PM, David E Jones wrote:
> > Basically it means that the from party is not in the role that > you've specified. > > The original idea with party roles in OFBiz was to not accidentally > add parties to roles when a party in a role is referred to somewhere. > > I've thought a few times that maybe it's not the best idea to do so, > and instead whenever a party is implied to be in a role if they are > not already then they should be added automatically. PartyRole entity continue to serve? Regards Scott > > -David > > > On Dec 17, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote: > >> Hi Guys, >> >> I was trying to work out how to create a relationship between a >> user and >> a company but I am getting an error - I am not a 100% sure if its my >> error in selecting the wrong stuff or if its a bug so a little bit of >> help would be great! >> >> First go to this page - >> https://demo.ofbiz.org/partymgr/control/EditPartyRelationships?partyId=DemoCustAgent >> then in the "Add other party relationship" select >> - in the role of = Sales Representative >> - is A = Employee >> - From Party ID = DemoCustCompany >> - in the role of = Manufacturer >> everything should be blank and then click Submit >> >> I get the following error: >> ERROR: Could not complete the createPartyRelationship >> [file:/demo/deployments/demo-20091217-0306/applications/party/ >> script/org/ofbiz/party/party/ >> PartyServices.xml#createPartyRelationship] >> process [problem creating the newEntity value: Error while inserting: >> [GenericEntity:PartyRelationship][comments,null()][createdStamp, >> 2009-12-17 >> 12:56:36.512(java.sql.Timestamp)][createdTxStamp,2009-12-17 >> 12:56:36.343(java.sql.Timestamp)][fromDate,2009-12-17 >> 12:56:36.493(java.sql.Timestamp)][lastUpdatedStamp,2009-12-17 >> 12:56:36.512(java.sql.Timestamp)][lastUpdatedTxStamp,2009-12-17 >> 12:56:36.343(java.sql.Timestamp)] >> [partyIdFrom,DemoCustCompany(java.lang.String)] >> [partyIdTo,DemoCustAgent(java.lang.String)] >> [partyRelationshipTypeId,EMPLOYMENT(java.lang.String)] >> [roleTypeIdFrom,MANUFACTURER(java.lang.String)] >> [roleTypeIdTo,SALES_REP(java.lang.String)][statusId,null()] >> [thruDate,null()] >> (SQL Exception while executing the following:INSERT INTO >> OFBIZ.PARTY_RELATIONSHIP (PARTY_ID_FROM, PARTY_ID_TO, >> ROLE_TYPE_ID_FROM, >> ROLE_TYPE_ID_TO, FROM_DATE, THRU_DATE, STATUS_ID, RELATIONSHIP_NAME, >> SECURITY_GROUP_ID, PRIORITY_TYPE_ID, PARTY_RELATIONSHIP_TYPE_ID, >> PERMISSIONS_ENUM_ID, POSITION_TITLE, COMMENTS, LAST_UPDATED_STAMP, >> LAST_UPDATED_TX_STAMP, CREATED_STAMP, CREATED_TX_STAMP) VALUES >> (?, ?, ?, >> ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?) (INSERT on table >> 'PARTY_RELATIONSHIP' caused a violation of foreign key constraint >> 'PARTY_REL_FPROLE' for key (DemoCustCompany,MANUFACTURER). The >> statement >> has been rolled back.))] >> >> There are no required fields on that part of the page - the only >> thing >> that is odd is that the drop down box for status does not have any >> content? >> >> Sorry if this is me being stupid! >> >> Cheers >> Sam > |
smime.p7s (4K)
Re: Possible Party Relationship Problem?
|
|
Re: Possible Party Relationship Problem?
|
|
On 18/12/2009, at 12:42 PM, David E Jones wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> On 18/12/2009, at 12:15 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> Basically it means that the from party is not in the role that >>> you've specified. >>> >>> The original idea with party roles in OFBiz was to not >>> accidentally add parties to roles when a party in a role is >>> referred to somewhere. >>> >>> I've thought a few times that maybe it's not the best idea to do >>> so, and instead whenever a party is implied to be in a role if >>> they are not already then they should be added automatically. >> >> If we did that (which I'm in favor of), what purpose would the >> PartyRole entity continue to serve? > > That's a good question. It would still keep track of which party is > in which role... but really that information shouldn't be used > alone, ie it should only be used in the context of defining a > party's relationship with something else. the purpose of the PartyRole entity and that its existence may cause more harm than good. Regards Scott |
Re: Possible Party Relationship Problem?
Administrator
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |