Re: Opinion about order items cancellation and update processes

[Jacques Le Roux]

Sorry Rashko,

I'm late on this. I found it while tring to put priorities on tasks I'd like to do. An das you know priorities change and not always
following your will
Did you made some progress on this ?

Jacques

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>

> Rashko,
>
> I must admit I have no time to look at this before Thursday 24. But this is something really important, and we can't escape too
> long to fix it. So I will have a serious look at it next week.
>
> I already have done some specific fixes, or rather workarounds, on this topic (notably to be able to show only  gross prices in
> backoffice) but did never decide to tackle it completly.
>
> In my opinion there are 2 ways to face it : reverse engineering or complete study from scratch (diagram, scenarios, use cases,
> etc.). I think we should better take the first solution to avoid to miss some points already present in code.
>
> If someone has a string opinion about that, please chime in...
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Rashko Rejmer" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. If you are referring to this particular problem:
>>
>>>From http://markmail.org/message/3yv6etafkqo6fuu2
>> "The second problem is that order item editing does not follow this
>> pattern. For example if you cancel one order item and then edit the
>> price of another order item, then tax adjustments of the previously
>> cancelled order item(first one) are removed, It is removed also the
>> order header tax adjustment."
>>
>> it is still present. I really want to solve it, but I am kind of
>> confused, because order item cancellation and editing processes behave
>> in completely different way. It is not possible to use these 2
>> functionalities together(on one order), because the results are
>> unpredictable. I applied a patch for some of the issues here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1866 , but the main problem
>> is still there.
>> I think that editing and cancellation of order items are close processes
>> and they should be unified, or at least changed in such a way that they
>> do not act against each other.
>>
>> Any suggestions and comments are really welcome. Thanks again!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rashko Rejmer
>>
>> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 13:00 +0200, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> Hi Rashko,
>>>
>>> Just to be sure to follow, has the problem exposed at the end of
>>> http://markmail.org/message/3yv6etafkqo6fuu2 already been fixed ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>
>

[Rashko Rejmer]

Hi Jacques,
I am currently not working on this issue, but for sure I will come  
back to it very soon, because I need to solve it. Probably next week I  
will start working on it and will bring back the discussion alive.

Regards,
Rashko Rejmer

On Aug 11, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Sorry Rashko,
>
> I'm late on this. I found it while tring to put priorities on tasks  
> I'd like to do. An das you know priorities change and not always  
> following your will
> Did you made some progress on this ?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>> Rashko,
>>
>> I must admit I have no time to look at this before Thursday 24. But  
>> this is something really important, and we can't escape too long to  
>> fix it. So I will have a serious look at it next week.
>>
>> I already have done some specific fixes, or rather workarounds, on  
>> this topic (notably to be able to show only  gross prices in  
>> backoffice) but did never decide to tackle it completly.
>>
>> In my opinion there are 2 ways to face it : reverse engineering or  
>> complete study from scratch (diagram, scenarios, use cases, etc.).  
>> I think we should better take the first solution to avoid to miss  
>> some points already present in code.
>>
>> If someone has a string opinion about that, please chime in...
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Rashko Rejmer" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reply. If you are referring to this particular  
>>> problem:
>>>
>>>> From http://markmail.org/message/3yv6etafkqo6fuu2
>>> "The second problem is that order item editing does not follow this
>>> pattern. For example if you cancel one order item and then edit the
>>> price of another order item, then tax adjustments of the previously
>>> cancelled order item(first one) are removed, It is removed also the
>>> order header tax adjustment."
>>>
>>> it is still present. I really want to solve it, but I am kind of
>>> confused, because order item cancellation and editing processes  
>>> behave
>>> in completely different way. It is not possible to use these 2
>>> functionalities together(on one order), because the results are
>>> unpredictable. I applied a patch for some of the issues here:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1866 , but the main  
>>> problem
>>> is still there.
>>> I think that editing and cancellation of order items are close  
>>> processes
>>> and they should be unified, or at least changed in such a way that  
>>> they
>>> do not act against each other.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions and comments are really welcome. Thanks again!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rashko Rejmer
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 13:00 +0200, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> Hi Rashko,
>>>>
>>>> Just to be sure to follow, has the problem exposed at the end of
>>>> http://markmail.org/message/3yv6etafkqo6fuu2 already been fixed ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>
>