deleting features
Locked
deleting features
 
|
Re: deleting features
|
|
Re: deleting features
|
|
It sounds like both options are possible although in general records
should be expired rather than deleted. Regards Scott On 3/09/2009, at 11:12 PM, buzlite wrote: > > Hello, > Anyone with a response to this question??? > Thanks > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/deleting-features-tp25239836p25273890.html > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> In >> https://localhost:8443/catalog/control/EditProductFeatures?productId=FA-001 >> >> Ofbiz permits the deletion of features from product variant. Since >> the >> feature has a from/thru date, I would expect that the user would >> simply >> retire the feature if unneeded rather than deletion. Could someone >> confirm >> this? |
smime.p7s (3K)
Re: deleting features
|
|
Re: deleting features
|
|
It's just something that can be improved, eventually it will bother
someone enough that they submit a patch to change it. You are more than welcome to be that person :-) Regards Scott On 4/09/2009, at 12:00 AM, buzlite wrote: > > Hmmm....this is a bit confusing. There are mentions of a need for a > trail > for auditing purposes. Yet there are several places in ofbiz that > permit a > user to actually remove items. Was the deletion added in for some > specific > purpose of is the auditing related focus been relaxed? Or have the > community decided to let the user decide whether or not to delete > certain > items. > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/deleting-features-tp25239836p25274587.html > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
Re: deleting features
Administrator
|
Re: deleting features
|
|
Personally I don't think it should be allowed to delete a product from
a category, why not just expire it and maintain the history? Regards Scott On 4/09/2009, at 1:16 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Please use rather user ML for such questions, see why here : > http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/yAk#MailingLists-DesignanddevelopmentList:dev@... > > Also consider some associations, say a product with a category : no > needs to track for an audit on such things. Hence removing a product > from a category is possible... > > Thanks > > Jacques > > From: "buzlite" <[hidden email]> >> Hmmm....this is a bit confusing. There are mentions of a need for >> a trail >> for auditing purposes. Yet there are several places in ofbiz that >> permit a >> user to actually remove items. Was the deletion added in for some >> specific >> purpose of is the auditing related focus been relaxed? Or have the >> community decided to let the user decide whether or not to delete >> certain >> items. >> -- >> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/deleting-features-tp25239836p25274587.html >> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > |
Re: deleting features
|
Administrator
|
Re: deleting features
|
|
I'm thinking more in terms of why should we delete it rather than why
should we keep it. For reporting purposes it could be very useful to know what categories a product was attached to at a given point in time. Perhaps sales dropped after the product was removed from the category but since we deleted the record we have no way of discovering that. Regards Scott On 4/09/2009, at 1:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Actually I did not write this stuff an I have no idea why this > choice has been made. > But I came to this conclusion since it sounded logical, do we really > need to track such changes ? Maybe in case of error though (but > tracking errors like that is a bit Stalinian isn'it ? Errare human > est...) > > Jacques > > From: "Scott Gray" <[hidden email]> >> Personally I don't think it should be allowed to delete a product >> from a category, why not just expire it and maintain the history? >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 4/09/2009, at 1:16 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> >>> Please use rather user ML for such questions, see why here : >>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/yAk#MailingLists-DesignanddevelopmentList:dev@... >>> >>> Also consider some associations, say a product with a category : >>> no needs to track for an audit on such things. Hence removing a >>> product from a category is possible... >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "buzlite" <[hidden email]> >>>> Hmmm....this is a bit confusing. There are mentions of a need >>>> for a trail >>>> for auditing purposes. Yet there are several places in ofbiz >>>> that permit a >>>> user to actually remove items. Was the deletion added in for >>>> some specific >>>> purpose of is the auditing related focus been relaxed? Or have the >>>> community decided to let the user decide whether or not to >>>> delete certain >>>> items. >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/deleting-features-tp25239836p25274587.html >>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >> > > |
Re: deleting features
|
Administrator
|
Re: deleting features
|
|
In reply to this post by Scott Gray-2
+1 - Audit trails would be better if we did better at saving history.
Why not just expire them when people want to remove them from a category? Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Sep 3, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > I'm thinking more in terms of why should we delete it rather than > why should we keep it. > For reporting purposes it could be very useful to know what > categories a product was attached to at a given point in time. > Perhaps sales dropped after the product was removed from the > category but since we deleted the record we have no way of > discovering that. > > Regards > Scott > > On 4/09/2009, at 1:57 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >> Actually I did not write this stuff an I have no idea why this >> choice has been made. >> But I came to this conclusion since it sounded logical, do we >> really need to track such changes ? Maybe in case of error though >> (but tracking errors like that is a bit Stalinian isn'it ? Errare >> human est...) >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "Scott Gray" <[hidden email]> >>> Personally I don't think it should be allowed to delete a product >>> from a category, why not just expire it and maintain the history? >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On 4/09/2009, at 1:16 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>>> Please use rather user ML for such questions, see why here : >>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/yAk#MailingLists-DesignanddevelopmentList:dev@... >>>> >>>> Also consider some associations, say a product with a category : >>>> no needs to track for an audit on such things. Hence removing a >>>> product from a category is possible... >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "buzlite" <[hidden email]> >>>>> Hmmm....this is a bit confusing. There are mentions of a need >>>>> for a trail >>>>> for auditing purposes. Yet there are several places in ofbiz >>>>> that permit a >>>>> user to actually remove items. Was the deletion added in for >>>>> some specific >>>>> purpose of is the auditing related focus been relaxed? Or have >>>>> the >>>>> community decided to let the user decide whether or not to >>>>> delete certain >>>>> items. >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/deleting-features-tp25239836p25274587.html >>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > |
Re: deleting features
|
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |