Users - Company as Employer
Locked
Users - Company as Employer
 
|
Just some general advice about Party/PartyRole please:
a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id and to alter its other attributes as appropriate? b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed to that role being taken by a Person? CJ _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
|
|
Yes to both.
However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. Search the emails from last Nov/Dec here or look in our crm app's seed data for some examples of how to conform to OFBiz standards. Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz server? :) Charles Johnson wrote: > Just some general advice about Party/PartyRole please: > > a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id > and to alter its other attributes as appropriate? > b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed > to that role being taken by a Person? > > > CJ > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - Company as Employer
|
|
In reply to this post by Charles Johnson-4
Charles Johnson wrote: > a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id > and to alter its other attributes as appropriate? Yes. Unless you are very familiar with OFBiz I wouldn't even recommend considering to try to build up a company config on your own. There are too many options and it is too easy to set it up to do something you don't want because you're not sure what an option is. It depends on the size of your deployment of course, as some companies really need to (or should...) know all options to avoid or solve problems over time and really get it working the way they want. > b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed > to that role being taken by a Person? Any Party can have and RoleType associated with them, regardless of whether that Party is a Person or a PartyGroup. So yes, it is fine for the Company party (a PartyGroup) to have that role. -David _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - Company as Employer
|
|
David E Jones wrote: >Charles Johnson wrote: > > >>a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id >>and to alter its other attributes as appropriate? >> >> > >Yes. Unless you are very familiar with OFBiz I wouldn't even recommend considering to try to build up a company config on your own. There are too many options and it is too easy to set it up to do something you don't want because you're not sure what an option is. It depends on the size of your deployment of course, as some companies really need to (or should...) know all options to avoid or solve problems over time and really get it working the way they want. > > > >>b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed >>to that role being taken by a Person? >> >> > >Any Party can have and RoleType associated with them, regardless of whether that Party is a Person or a PartyGroup. So yes, it is fine for the Company party (a PartyGroup) to have that role. > >-David > > >_______________________________________________ >Users mailing list >[hidden email] >http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > >>Any Party can have and RoleType associated with them Thanks David. I just though some might argue that it could hide a relationship, since it could be said to cloak the Person relationship between a an employer and employee - I wonder if that's what Si Chen is alluding to in his comments on this? Still it needn't be an either/or - or need it..? CJ Thanks _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - Company as Employer
|
|
In reply to this post by Si Chen-2
Si Chen wrote: >>Yes to both. However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. Search the emails from last Nov/Dec here or look in our crm app's seed data for some examples of how to conform to OFBiz standards. Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz server? :) Charles Johnson wrote:Just some general advice about Party/PartyRole please: a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id and to alter its other attributes as appropriate? b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed to that role being taken by a Person? CJ _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz server? :) >> Yes i did thanks and thought i'd replied to you about that. You kindly sent me two sets. One of the responses i sent was undeliverable and that i only just discovered today. Let me know if you need more info. >> However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. >> Indeed. This seems to be anomalous (hope you can view html mail in this case): The Profile of Alison Wilson
[10050]
//============================================================================================= The Profile of Alison Wilson
[10050]
Relationships
CJ _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense.
Charles Johnson wrote: > > > Si Chen wrote: > >>Yes to both. >> >>However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. Search the emails from >>last Nov/Dec here or look in our crm app's seed data for some examples >>of how to conform to OFBiz standards. >> >>Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz >>server? :) >> >>Charles Johnson wrote: >> >> >>>Just some general advice about Party/PartyRole please: >>> >>>a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id >>>and to alter its other attributes as appropriate? >>>b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed >>>to that role being taken by a Person? >>> >>> >>>CJ >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Users mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Users mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> >> > >> > > Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz > server? :) >>> > > Yes i did thanks and thought i'd replied to you about that. You kindly sent me two sets. One of the responses i sent was undeliverable and that i only just discovered today. Let me know if you need more info. > >>> > However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. >>> > > Indeed. This seems to be anomalous (hope you can view html mail in this case): > > > The Profile of Alison Wilson [10050] > > Member Roles > > *Role* > > Salaried employee [PAID_EMPLOYEE] > > //============================================================================================= > > > The Profile of Alison Wilson [10050] > Relationships > * Description* > > * From Date* > > Party *10050* in role *Salaried employee* is a *Employee* of party > *Company* in role *Employer* > > 2003-01-01 00:00:00.000 > [Remove] > <https://127.0.0.1:8443/partymgr/control/deletePartyRelationship?partyIdTo=10050&roleTypeIdTo=PAID_EMPLOYEE&roleTypeIdFrom=EMPLOYER&partyIdFrom=Company&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.000&partyId=10050> > > *Thru Date: * Calendar > <javascript:call_cal(document.updatePartyRel0.thruDate, null);> > *Comments: * > > Party *Company* in role *Employer* is a *Employee* of party *10050* in > role *Salaried employee* > > 2003-01-01 00:00:00.000 > [Remove] > <https://127.0.0.1:8443/partymgr/control/deletePartyRelationship?partyIdTo=Company&roleTypeIdTo=EMPLOYER&roleTypeIdFrom=PAID_EMPLOYEE&partyIdFrom=10050&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.000&partyId=10050> > > > CJ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - Company as Employer
|
|
Adrian Crum wrote: >>The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense. Charles Johnson wrote: The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense. >> Yes - that's the point, but here it is in PartyRelationship:
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
|
|
Hey - that's exactly how PartyRelationships are set up. Be
careful--different applications may use the inverse relationship.
Si Charles Johnson wrote:
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
|
|
If any applications DO use the inverse relationship then they should be
rewritten. That relationship doesn't make sense. An employer is not the employee of the employee (unless there is some kind of weird arrangement in the real world). Si Chen wrote: > Hey - that's exactly how PartyRelationships are set up. Be > careful--different applications may use the inverse relationship. > > Si > > Charles Johnson wrote: > >> >> >> Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>>The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense. >>> >>>Charles Johnson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Si Chen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Yes to both. >>>>> >>>>>However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. Search the emails from >>>>>last Nov/Dec here or look in our crm app's seed data for some examples >>>>>of how to conform to OFBiz standards. >>>>> >>>>>Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz >>>>>server? :) >>>>> >>>>>Charles Johnson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Just some general advice about Party/PartyRole please: >>>>>> >>>>>>a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id >>>>>>and to alter its other attributes as appropriate? >>>>>>b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed >>>>>>to that role being taken by a Person? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>CJ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>Users mailing list >>>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Users mailing list >>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz >>>>server? :) >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes i did thanks and thought i'd replied to you about that. You kindly sent me two sets. One of the responses i sent was undeliverable and that i only just discovered today. Let me know if you need more info. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. >>>> >>>> >>>>Indeed. This seems to be anomalous (hope you can view html mail in this case): >>>> >>>> >>>>The Profile of Alison Wilson [10050] >>>> >>>>Member Roles >>>> >>>>*Role* >>>> >>>>Salaried employee [PAID_EMPLOYEE] >>>> >>>>//============================================================================================= >>>> >>>> >>>>The Profile of Alison Wilson [10050] >>>>Relationships >>>>* Description* >>>> >>>>* From Date* >>>> >>>>Party *10050* in role *Salaried employee* is a *Employee* of party >>>>*Company* in role *Employer* >>>> >>>> 2003-01-01 00:00:00.000 >>>> [Remove] >>>><https://127.0.0.1:8443/partymgr/control/deletePartyRelationship?partyIdTo=10050&roleTypeIdTo=PAID_EMPLOYEE&roleTypeIdFrom=EMPLOYER&partyIdFrom=Company&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.000&partyId=10050> >>>> >>>>*Thru Date: * Calendar >>>><javascript:call_cal(document.updatePartyRel0.thruDate, null);> >>>>*Comments: * >>>> >>>>Party *Company* in role *Employer* is a *Employee* of party *10050* in >>>>role *Salaried employee* >>>> >>>> 2003-01-01 00:00:00.000 >>>> [Remove] >>>><https://127.0.0.1:8443/partymgr/control/deletePartyRelationship?partyIdTo=Company&roleTypeIdTo=EMPLOYER&roleTypeIdFrom=PAID_EMPLOYEE&partyIdFrom=10050&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.000&partyId=10050> >>>> >>>> >>>>CJ >>>> >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Users mailing list >>>>[hidden email] >>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Users mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense. >>>> >> >>Yes - that's the point, but here it is in PartyRelationship: >> >> >> >> View >> <https://127.0.0.1:8443/webtools/control/ViewGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&partyIdFrom=10050&partyIdTo=Company&roleTypeIdFrom=PAID_EMPLOYEE&roleTypeIdTo=EMPLOYER&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.0> >> Delete >> <https://127.0.0.1:8443/webtools/control/UpdateGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&partyIdFrom=10050&partyIdTo=Company&roleTypeIdFrom=PAID_EMPLOYEE&roleTypeIdTo=EMPLOYER&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.0&UPDATE_MODE=DELETE&entityName=PartyRelationship&find=true> >> >> 10050 >> >> Company >> >> PAID_EMPLOYEE >> >> EMPLOYER >> >> 2003-01-01 00:00:00.0 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> EMPLOYMENT >> >> >> >> 2006-05-08 14:04:27.898 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:04:27.898 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:04:27.898 >> >> 2006-05-08 >> 14:04:27.898 >> View >> <https://127.0.0.1:8443/webtools/control/ViewGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&partyIdFrom=Company&partyIdTo=10050&roleTypeIdFrom=EMPLOYER&roleTypeIdTo=PAID_EMPLOYEE&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.0> >> Delete >> <https://127.0.0.1:8443/webtools/control/UpdateGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&partyIdFrom=Company&partyIdTo=10050&roleTypeIdFrom=EMPLOYER&roleTypeIdTo=PAID_EMPLOYEE&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.0&UPDATE_MODE=DELETE&entityName=PartyRelationship&find=true> >> >> Company >> >> 10050 >> >> EMPLOYER >> >> PAID_EMPLOYEE >> >> 2003-01-01 00:00:00.0 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> EMPLOYMENT >> >> >> >> 2006-05-08 14:05:06.494 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:05:06.494 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:05:06.494 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:05:06.494 >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Users mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
Re: Users - Company as Employer
|
|
In reply to this post by Si Chen-2
Si Chen wrote: > Hey - that's exactly how PartyRelationships are set up. Be > careful--different applications may use the inverse relationship. > > Si > > Charles Johnson wrote: > >> >> >> Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>>The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense. >>> >>>Charles Johnson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Si Chen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Yes to both. >>>>> >>>>>However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. Search the emails from >>>>>last Nov/Dec here or look in our crm app's seed data for some examples >>>>>of how to conform to OFBiz standards. >>>>> >>>>>Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz >>>>>server? :) >>>>> >>>>>Charles Johnson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Just some general advice about Party/PartyRole please: >>>>>> >>>>>>a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id >>>>>>and to alter its other attributes as appropriate? >>>>>>b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed >>>>>>to that role being taken by a Person? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>CJ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>Users mailing list >>>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Users mailing list >>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz >>>>server? :) >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes i did thanks and thought i'd replied to you about that. You kindly sent me two sets. One of the responses i sent was undeliverable and that i only just discovered today. Let me know if you need more info. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. >>>> >>>> >>>>Indeed. This seems to be anomalous (hope you can view html mail in this case): >>>> >>>> >>>>The Profile of Alison Wilson [10050] >>>> >>>>Member Roles >>>> >>>>*Role* >>>> >>>>Salaried employee [PAID_EMPLOYEE] >>>> >>>>//============================================================================================= >>>> >>>> >>>>The Profile of Alison Wilson [10050] >>>>Relationships >>>>* Description* >>>> >>>>* From Date* >>>> >>>>Party *10050* in role *Salaried employee* is a *Employee* of party >>>>*Company* in role *Employer* >>>> >>>> 2003-01-01 00:00:00.000 >>>> [Remove] >>>><https://127.0.0.1:8443/partymgr/control/deletePartyRelationship?partyIdTo=10050&roleTypeIdTo=PAID_EMPLOYEE&roleTypeIdFrom=EMPLOYER&partyIdFrom=Company&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.000&partyId=10050> >>>> >>>>*Thru Date: * Calendar >>>><javascript:call_cal(document.updatePartyRel0.thruDate, null);> >>>>*Comments: * >>>> >>>>Party *Company* in role *Employer* is a *Employee* of party *10050* in >>>>role *Salaried employee* >>>> >>>> 2003-01-01 00:00:00.000 >>>> [Remove] >>>><https://127.0.0.1:8443/partymgr/control/deletePartyRelationship?partyIdTo=Company&roleTypeIdTo=EMPLOYER&roleTypeIdFrom=PAID_EMPLOYEE&partyIdFrom=10050&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.000&partyId=10050> >>>> >>>> >>>>CJ >>>> >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Users mailing list >>>>[hidden email] >>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>> >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Users mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense. >>>> >> >>Yes - that's the point, but here it is in PartyRelationship: >> >> >> >> View >> <https://127.0.0.1:8443/webtools/control/ViewGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&partyIdFrom=10050&partyIdTo=Company&roleTypeIdFrom=PAID_EMPLOYEE&roleTypeIdTo=EMPLOYER&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.0> >> Delete >> <https://127.0.0.1:8443/webtools/control/UpdateGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&partyIdFrom=10050&partyIdTo=Company&roleTypeIdFrom=PAID_EMPLOYEE&roleTypeIdTo=EMPLOYER&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.0&UPDATE_MODE=DELETE&entityName=PartyRelationship&find=true> >> >> 10050 >> >> Company >> >> PAID_EMPLOYEE >> >> EMPLOYER >> >> 2003-01-01 00:00:00.0 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> EMPLOYMENT >> >> >> >> 2006-05-08 14:04:27.898 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:04:27.898 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:04:27.898 >> >> 2006-05-08 >> 14:04:27.898 >> View >> <https://127.0.0.1:8443/webtools/control/ViewGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&partyIdFrom=Company&partyIdTo=10050&roleTypeIdFrom=EMPLOYER&roleTypeIdTo=PAID_EMPLOYEE&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.0> >> Delete >> <https://127.0.0.1:8443/webtools/control/UpdateGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&partyIdFrom=Company&partyIdTo=10050&roleTypeIdFrom=EMPLOYER&roleTypeIdTo=PAID_EMPLOYEE&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.0&UPDATE_MODE=DELETE&entityName=PartyRelationship&find=true> >> >> Company >> >> 10050 >> >> EMPLOYER >> >> PAID_EMPLOYEE >> >> 2003-01-01 00:00:00.0 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> EMPLOYMENT >> >> >> >> 2006-05-08 14:05:06.494 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:05:06.494 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:05:06.494 >> >> 2006-05-08 14:05:06.494 >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Users mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >_______________________________________________ >Users mailing list >[hidden email] >http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > >> Hey - that's exactly how PartyRelationships are set up Sorry - i'm now getting confused. I put that PartyRelationship together: a. is it right? b. is it redundant to specify the inverse relationship explicitly? c. Why is the application saying "Party *Company* in role *Employer* is a *Employee* of party *10050* in role *Salaried employee*" (which of course is part of the general PartyManager functionality)? CJ _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |