ProductPromoWorker.doAction:PROMO_GWP

[Adam Heath-2]

Why does GWP require inventory?  Shouldn't that be a flag on the
action itself?  Our client wants to always give the gift, and have a
backorder sub-process be initiated.

[Scott Gray-2]

I've had to modify this in the past as well, so +1 from me.

Regards
Scott

On 19/03/2010, at 4:45 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Why does GWP require inventory?  Shouldn't that be a flag on the
> action itself?  Our client wants to always give the gift, and have a
> backorder sub-process be initiated.

[Adam Heath-2]

Scott Gray wrote:
> I've had to modify this in the past as well, so +1 from me.

Where is that code then?  Why isn't it committed?

> On 19/03/2010, at 4:45 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Why does GWP require inventory?  Shouldn't that be a flag on the
>> action itself?  Our client wants to always give the gift, and have a
>> backorder sub-process be initiated.
>

[Scott Gray-2]

On 19/03/2010, at 5:01 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Scott Gray wrote:
>> I've had to modify this in the past as well, so +1 from me.
>
> Where is that code then?  Why isn't it committed?

All I did was turn off the inventory requirement during the condition checking, it was not a generic solution that would have incorporated both strategies.

>
>> On 19/03/2010, at 4:45 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> Why does GWP require inventory?  Shouldn't that be a flag on the
>>> action itself?  Our client wants to always give the gift, and have a
>>> backorder sub-process be initiated.
>>
>

[Adam Heath-2]

Scott Gray wrote:
> On 19/03/2010, at 5:01 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> I've had to modify this in the past as well, so +1 from me.
>> Where is that code then?  Why isn't it committed?
>
> All I did was turn off the inventory requirement during the condition checking, it was not a generic solution that would have incorporated both strategies.

Bother, thought you might say that.

I'm still toying around at the idea stage, might send my thoughts next
week.

[Scott Gray-2]

On 19/03/2010, at 5:26 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Scott Gray wrote:
>> On 19/03/2010, at 5:01 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>> I've had to modify this in the past as well, so +1 from me.
>>> Where is that code then?  Why isn't it committed?
>>
>> All I did was turn off the inventory requirement during the condition checking, it was not a generic solution that would have incorporated both strategies.
>
> Bother, thought you might say that.
>
> I'm still toying around at the idea stage, might send my thoughts next
> week.
>

You could always just add a new promo action type that doesn't require inventory so that you've got one with and one without.

Regards
Scott

[Adam Heath-2]

Scott Gray wrote:

> On 19/03/2010, at 5:26 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2010, at 5:01 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>> I've had to modify this in the past as well, so +1 from me.
>>>> Where is that code then?  Why isn't it committed?
>>> All I did was turn off the inventory requirement during the condition checking, it was not a generic solution that would have incorporated both strategies.
>> Bother, thought you might say that.
>>
>> I'm still toying around at the idea stage, might send my thoughts next
>> week.
>>
>
> You could always just add a new promo action type that doesn't require inventory so that you've got one with and one without.

Modify PROMO_GWP to, in addition to adding a product, allow a
configurable set(PromoAction entity) of PRODUCT_FEATURE to be added to
the ShoppingCartItem.  Then, add a few new feature types,
FREE_SHIPPING(on the promo item itself), and NO_INVENTORY_CHECK.