Should Production Runs mandatory and dependent production runs allow for manual association?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Should Production Runs mandatory and dependent production runs allow for manual association?

Christian Carlow-OFBizzer
The Assocs tab of a production run lists mandatory and dependent
productions runs (WorkEffortAssoc) but provides no way to create the
records manually.  Does anyone know if this is intentional or could it
be added as an improvement?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should Production Runs mandatory and dependent production runs allow for manual association?

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
Could you not do it there?
https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/workeffort/control/FindWorkEffort

Jacques

On Monday, January 27, 2014 7:04 PM, [hidden email] wrote
> The Assocs tab of a production run lists mandatory and dependent
> productions runs (WorkEffortAssoc) but provides no way to create the
> records manually.  Does anyone know if this is intentional or could it
> be added as an improvement?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should Production Runs mandatory and dependent production runs allow for manual association?

Christian Carlow-OFBizzer
Thanks Jacques,

You are right, WorkEffort App allows for mandatory and dependent
relationships to be created between production runs.  It might be worth
allowing the information to be created from the Production Run Assoc tab
as well but using WorkEfforts is sufficient for now.

On 01/28/2014 03:59 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> Could you not do it there?
> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/workeffort/control/FindWorkEffort
>
> Jacques
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2014 7:04 PM, [hidden email] wrote
>> The Assocs tab of a production run lists mandatory and dependent
>> productions runs (WorkEffortAssoc) but provides no way to create the
>> records manually.  Does anyone know if this is intentional or could it
>> be added as an improvement?