Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
Locked
Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
 
|
Though the 'parentCustRequestId' is used particularly in the SCRUM
component, the CustRequest entity is defined in ORDERMGR and extended in SCRUM. I would say that moving the definition of the field 'parentCustRequestId' from SCRUM to ORDERMGR would be the better solution, given that there are similarities with other entities. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:33 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote: > Author: deepak > Date: Wed Mar 18 10:33:39 2015 > New Revision: 1667483 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1667483 > Log: > Moved parentCustRequestId relationship for CustRequest entity from > order/entitymodel.xml to scrum/entitymodel.xml, as parentCustRequestId > defined in scrum component. > > Modified: > ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=1667483&r1=1667482&r2=1667483&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml (original) > +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Wed Mar 18 > 10:33:39 2015 > @@ -1780,9 +1780,6 @@ under the License. > <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_CUOM" title="Currency" > rel-entity-name="Uom"> > <key-map field-name="currencyUomId" rel-field-name="uomId"/> > </relation> > - <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_PARENT" title="Parent" > rel-entity-name="CustRequest"> > - <key-map field-name="parentCustRequestId" > rel-field-name="custRequestId"/> > - </relation> > </entity> > <entity entity-name="CustRequestAttribute" > package-name="org.ofbiz.order.request" > > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=1667483&r1=1667482&r2=1667483&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml (original) > +++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Wed Mar 18 > 10:33:39 2015 > @@ -85,6 +85,9 @@ under the License. > <field name="custSequenceNum" type="numeric"/> > <field name="parentCustRequestId" type="id-ne"/> > <field name="billed" type="indicator"/> > + <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_PARENT" title="Parent" > rel-entity-name="CustRequest"> > + <key-map field-name="parentCustRequestId" > rel-field-name="custRequestId"/> > + </relation> > </extend-entity> > > <view-entity entity-name="ScrumProjectSprintBacklogAndTask" > > > |
Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
|
|
Hi Pierre,
As parentCustRrequestId is only used in Scrum component so it does not make sense to add this in main entity definitions https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5481, Thanks & Regards — Deepak Dixit > On Mar 18, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Though the 'parentCustRequestId' is used particularly in the SCRUM > component, the CustRequest entity is defined in ORDERMGR and extended in > SCRUM. > > I would say that moving the definition of the field 'parentCustRequestId' > from SCRUM to ORDERMGR would be the better solution, given that there are > similarities with other entities. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:33 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Author: deepak >> Date: Wed Mar 18 10:33:39 2015 >> New Revision: 1667483 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1667483 >> Log: >> Moved parentCustRequestId relationship for CustRequest entity from >> order/entitymodel.xml to scrum/entitymodel.xml, as parentCustRequestId >> defined in scrum component. >> >> Modified: >> ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml >> ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml >> >> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=1667483&r1=1667482&r2=1667483&view=diff >> >> ============================================================================== >> --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml (original) >> +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Wed Mar 18 >> 10:33:39 2015 >> @@ -1780,9 +1780,6 @@ under the License. >> <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_CUOM" title="Currency" >> rel-entity-name="Uom"> >> <key-map field-name="currencyUomId" rel-field-name="uomId"/> >> </relation> >> - <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_PARENT" title="Parent" >> rel-entity-name="CustRequest"> >> - <key-map field-name="parentCustRequestId" >> rel-field-name="custRequestId"/> >> - </relation> >> </entity> >> <entity entity-name="CustRequestAttribute" >> package-name="org.ofbiz.order.request" >> >> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=1667483&r1=1667482&r2=1667483&view=diff >> >> ============================================================================== >> --- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml (original) >> +++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Wed Mar 18 >> 10:33:39 2015 >> @@ -85,6 +85,9 @@ under the License. >> <field name="custSequenceNum" type="numeric"/> >> <field name="parentCustRequestId" type="id-ne"/> >> <field name="billed" type="indicator"/> >> + <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_PARENT" title="Parent" >> rel-entity-name="CustRequest"> >> + <key-map field-name="parentCustRequestId" >> rel-field-name="custRequestId"/> >> + </relation> >> </extend-entity> >> >> <view-entity entity-name="ScrumProjectSprintBacklogAndTask" >> >> >> |
Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
Hi Deepak,
I'm not sure if we should or not revisit https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5481 and backport more (just spotted it, did not re-read comments there yet) Jacques Le 18/03/2015 11:33, [hidden email] a écrit : > Author: deepak > Date: Wed Mar 18 10:33:39 2015 > New Revision: 1667483 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1667483 > Log: > Moved parentCustRequestId relationship for CustRequest entity from order/entitymodel.xml to scrum/entitymodel.xml, as parentCustRequestId defined in scrum component. > > Modified: > ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=1667483&r1=1667482&r2=1667483&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml (original) > +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Wed Mar 18 10:33:39 2015 > @@ -1780,9 +1780,6 @@ under the License. > <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_CUOM" title="Currency" rel-entity-name="Uom"> > <key-map field-name="currencyUomId" rel-field-name="uomId"/> > </relation> > - <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_PARENT" title="Parent" rel-entity-name="CustRequest"> > - <key-map field-name="parentCustRequestId" rel-field-name="custRequestId"/> > - </relation> > </entity> > <entity entity-name="CustRequestAttribute" > package-name="org.ofbiz.order.request" > > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=1667483&r1=1667482&r2=1667483&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml (original) > +++ ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/scrum/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Wed Mar 18 10:33:39 2015 > @@ -85,6 +85,9 @@ under the License. > <field name="custSequenceNum" type="numeric"/> > <field name="parentCustRequestId" type="id-ne"/> > <field name="billed" type="indicator"/> > + <relation type="one" fk-name="CUST_REQ_PARENT" title="Parent" rel-entity-name="CustRequest"> > + <key-map field-name="parentCustRequestId" rel-field-name="custRequestId"/> > + </relation> > </extend-entity> > > <view-entity entity-name="ScrumProjectSprintBacklogAndTask" > > > |
Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
|
|
In reply to this post by Deepak Dixit-3
Hi Deepak,
That issue shortly after the moment release r13.07.01 came available to the public. That release didn't have numerous special purpose components incorporated. And made that bug visible. However, though something is uses at a lower level, we should not have something as basic as a parent self reference in an entity-extension in a lower level component. Maybe the contributor hadn't thought about that, when the component was first conceived and there after completed to its current state. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com |
Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
|
|
By the way, now order mgr has an even greater dependency on a special
purpose application. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Deepak, > > That issue shortly after the moment release r13.07.01 came available to > the public. That release didn't have numerous special purpose components > incorporated. And made that bug visible. > > However, though something is uses at a lower level, we should not have > something as basic as a parent self reference in an entity-extension in a > lower level component. Maybe the contributor hadn't thought about that, > when the component was first conceived and there after completed to its > current state. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > |
Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
|
|
Pierre,
I think that there is a misunderstanding here: the field was declared as an extension in the scrum component and as a consequence the relation to it should also be there, and Deepak fixed this issue; in fact this fix removed a dependency from the order to the scrum component. Jacopo On Mar 19, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: > By the way, now order mgr has an even greater dependency on a special > purpose application. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Hi Deepak, >> >> That issue shortly after the moment release r13.07.01 came available to >> the public. That release didn't have numerous special purpose components >> incorporated. And made that bug visible. >> >> However, though something is uses at a lower level, we should not have >> something as basic as a parent self reference in an entity-extension in a >> lower level component. Maybe the contributor hadn't thought about that, >> when the component was first conceived and there after completed to its >> current state. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Pierre Smits >> >> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >> Based Manufacturing, Professional >> Services and Retail & Trade >> http://www.orrtiz.com >> >> |
Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
|
|
Jacopo,
There is no misunderstanding on my part. Declaring a field to reference another record in the same entity should never be in an extension. And if that happens, corrective actions should be undertaken. If Deepak had done a bit more research it would have shown that parentCustRequestId is used in ordermgr, see: - http://demo-trunk-ofbiz.apache.org/ordermgr/control/FindRequest - http://demo-trunk-ofbiz.apache.org/ordermgr/control/request Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Jacopo Cappellato < [hidden email]> wrote: > Pierre, > > I think that there is a misunderstanding here: the field was declared as > an extension in the scrum component and as a consequence the relation to it > should also be there, and Deepak fixed this issue; in fact this fix removed > a dependency from the order to the scrum component. > > Jacopo > > On Mar 19, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > By the way, now order mgr has an even greater dependency on a special > > purpose application. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > > Based Manufacturing, Professional > > Services and Retail & Trade > > http://www.orrtiz.com > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Deepak, > >> > >> That issue shortly after the moment release r13.07.01 came available to > >> the public. That release didn't have numerous special purpose components > >> incorporated. And made that bug visible. > >> > >> However, though something is uses at a lower level, we should not have > >> something as basic as a parent self reference in an entity-extension in > a > >> lower level component. Maybe the contributor hadn't thought about that, > >> when the component was first conceived and there after completed to its > >> current state. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Pierre Smits > >> > >> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > >> Services & Solutions for Cloud- > >> Based Manufacturing, Professional > >> Services and Retail & Trade > >> http://www.orrtiz.com > >> > >> > > |
Re: svn commit: r1667483 - in /ofbiz/trunk: applications/order/entitydef/e
|
|
Hi Pierre,
inline: > On Mar 19, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Jacopo, > > There is no misunderstanding on my part. Declaring a field to reference > another record in the same entity should never be in an extension. And if > that happens, corrective actions should be undertaken. > > If Deepak had done a bit more research it would have shown that > parentCustRequestId > is used in ordermgr, see: parentCustRequestId not used directly in ordermgr. > > - http://demo-trunk-ofbiz.apache.org/ordermgr/control/FindRequest FindRequest form using auto-fields-entity attribute to render the form, thats why parentCustRequestId is rendered in FindRequest form. {code} <form name="FindRequests" target="FindRequest" title="" type="single" default-map-name="parameters" header-row-style="header-row" default-table-style="basic-table"> <auto-fields-entity entity-name="CustRequest" default-field-type="find"/> <auto-fields-entity entity-name="CustRequest" default-field-type="find”/> {code} And same applies to create/edit request form. Thanks & Regards — Deepak Dixit > - http://demo-trunk-ofbiz.apache.org/ordermgr/control/request > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Jacopo Cappellato < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Pierre, >> >> I think that there is a misunderstanding here: the field was declared as >> an extension in the scrum component and as a consequence the relation to it >> should also be there, and Deepak fixed this issue; in fact this fix removed >> a dependency from the order to the scrum component. >> >> Jacopo >> >> On Mar 19, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> By the way, now order mgr has an even greater dependency on a special >>> purpose application. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Pierre Smits >>> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>> Services and Retail & Trade >>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Deepak, >>>> >>>> That issue shortly after the moment release r13.07.01 came available to >>>> the public. That release didn't have numerous special purpose components >>>> incorporated. And made that bug visible. >>>> >>>> However, though something is uses at a lower level, we should not have >>>> something as basic as a parent self reference in an entity-extension in >> a >>>> lower level component. Maybe the contributor hadn't thought about that, >>>> when the component was first conceived and there after completed to its >>>> current state. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Pierre Smits >>>> >>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud- >>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional >>>> Services and Retail & Trade >>>> http://www.orrtiz.com >>>> >>>> >> >> |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |