[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3764?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14276797#comment-14276797 ]
Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-3764:
----------------------------------------
Nicolas you said
{quote}
I don't see the improvement betwee this and adding directly the new field on PartyRelationship entity.
{quote}
Actually it's just a matter of organisation. The idea is to not put too much fields in PartyRelationship and for that create a specific entity. Like we have the Employment entity for instance.
But the problem is now if we want to have many account numbers between 2 parties, as mentionned Ron.
So there are still 2 possibilities
# Add a new sub-class of PartyRelationship, like PartyRelationId as I suggested based on what Bob suggested. We would then need to put the relationId I suggested in the PK.
** Pros: it's simple and does not entail to make a relation with PartyRelationship and to add specific types for the relationId which can be many. More than PartyIdentificationType I guess.
** Cons: it's maybe too simple if we want to detail the specific types of the relationId
# Add another partyRelIdentificationId field in the PK of a new PartyRelIdentification entity as you suggestted. We should alson create a new PartyRelIdentificationType for dedicated types
** Pros: the opposite ot the other solution
** Cons: the opposite ot the other solution
Now I think it's the community to decide what we want
> Storing supplier relationship sub-class & two related fixes
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-3764
> URL:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3764> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: party, product
> Reporter: Bob Morley
> Attachments: OFBIZ-3764_SupplierRel.patch
>
>
> Despite how much I typed; this is really a very small patch. :)
> This patch adds a new entity "SupplierRel" which is a sub-class of "PartyRelationship" (as well as a view-entity for convenience). It provides a new field "accountNumber" that can be used to store the long-term account number assigned to the relationship between the Company and its Supplier. The life of this account number is longer than any agreement between the two, so it has been put on this informal relationship. Moreover, it is possible to have an informal relationship between a company and a supplier with out an explicit binding agreement -- this was discussed most recently in this thread:
>
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Storing-supplier-provided-account-number-td2076162.html#a2076162> ALSO -- this patch fixes two problems that I encountered when attempting to create a party relationship.
> a) It did not look right to have an empty dropdown for status -- I created the standard "Created" status under the PARTY_REL_STATUS type so that we show the only applicable status. There does not appear to be any specific logic looking for party relationships with a blank status, so creating ones with this status should not cause any issues.
> b) When creating the PartyRelationship the response in the controller was of type "view-last" which was a problem because the last controller request was typically the ajax one to "FindPartyName" which was used as part of the party lookup field in that form. The net result, was that on success it would render the PartyName instead of replaying the EditPartyRelationships. Changed form "view-last" to "view" to resolve this issue.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
Locked
