Haha! Hahaha!! Skip, yeah, you're right. I live in a country so focused on efficiency, we may
actually have some kind of formula for lawmaker to citizen ratio! We also control the number of varsity graduates to exactly match market demands. With efficiency lessons etched so hard into our skulls, I feel for David Jones as he tries to manage a world-wide (and tremendously varied) pool of contributors and contributions. My country is a socialist republic. Maybe David would be happy here. The phrase "benign dictator" sounds like such an oxymoron (how to achieve?). But that seems to be what works, from history's lessons. I don't think my government would consider "having more laws (or lawmakers) than there are citizens to follow them laws". Hmm. Curious. Jonathon skip@theDevers wrote: > "So many people, so few lawmakers." Gads Jonathon, you obviously don't live > in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items > > > Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate (or largely > missing) parts in > OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, maybe). > > But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in on it), and > just one soup (OFBiz, > framework, foundation functionalities). > > I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to prevent cyclists > from cycling on > pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they realized > that not everyone cycles > at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on the roadsides > can be terribly scary > for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to make a law > that fines me for > cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few lawmakers. > > Jonathon > > Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP system to >> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to charge a >> customers credit card and "ship" a physical product that the system >> "knew" was not available? >> >> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm that >> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would >> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, leaving an >> audit trail etc. >> >> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed. >> >> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix. >> >> >> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>> Thank you! >>> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> Well, there ya go! >>>> >>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels... >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to >>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of >>>>> it's processing. >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"? >>>>>> >>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments, >>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing >>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do >>>>>> it somehow). >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock >>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due >>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue. >>>>>>> rev = 545314 >>>>>>> check inventory=Y >>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y >>>>>>> require inventory=N >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>> For ERP Information: >>>>>>> > http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic > es >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>> [hidden email] >>>>> >>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>> >>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>> For ERP Information: >>>>> > http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic > es >>>>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: > 10/24/2007 2:31 PM > > > |
You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon? Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week, 30 of which spent on politic-ing. ;) Sometimes it would be nice if my involvement in OFBiz was as a "manager" or a "dictator", even if a benign or benevolent one, but that's really not what this open source project is all about (some, mostly commercial driven ones, are a bit more totalitarian). It's all about collaboration and I don't think top-down management is very healthy for that. I see myself as more of a moderator, just trying to keep things flowing in a reasonable direction and raising red flags when things seem to stray from that (not that I'm always right when I do!). This is one of the reasons why there isn't really an end goal or project plan as there should always be for a traditional organization or product. There has been some discussion about a road map, which I do think would be valuable for all, but not as a top-down management sort of thing, more as a chance for people to collaborate more effectively by communicating what we'd all like to see in the near and distant future for the project. -David On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > Haha! Hahaha!! Skip, yeah, you're right. I live in a country so > focused on efficiency, we may actually have some kind of formula > for lawmaker to citizen ratio! We also control the number of > varsity graduates to exactly match market demands. > > With efficiency lessons etched so hard into our skulls, I feel for > David Jones as he tries to manage a world-wide (and tremendously > varied) pool of contributors and contributions. My country is a > socialist republic. Maybe David would be happy here. The phrase > "benign dictator" sounds like such an oxymoron (how to achieve?). > But that seems to be what works, from history's lessons. > > I don't think my government would consider "having more laws (or > lawmakers) than there are citizens to follow them laws". Hmm. Curious. > > Jonathon > > skip@theDevers wrote: >> "So many people, so few lawmakers." Gads Jonathon, you obviously >> don't live >> in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :) >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >> Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate >> (or largely >> missing) parts in >> OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, maybe). >> But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in on >> it), and >> just one soup (OFBiz, >> framework, foundation functionalities). >> I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to prevent >> cyclists >> from cycling on >> pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they >> realized >> that not everyone cycles >> at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on the >> roadsides >> can be terribly scary >> for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to >> make a law >> that fines me for >> cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few >> lawmakers. >> Jonathon >> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP >>> system to >>> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to >>> charge a >>> customers credit card and "ship" a physical product that the system >>> "knew" was not available? >>> >>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm >>> that >>> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would >>> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, >>> leaving an >>> audit trail etc. >>> >>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed. >>> >>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix. >>> >>> >>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>> Well, there ya go! >>>>> >>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels... >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to >>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as >>>>>> part of >>>>>> it's processing. >>>>>> -Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates >>>>>>> shipments, >>>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or >>>>>>> packing >>>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to >>>>>>> automatically do >>>>>>> it somehow). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock >>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this >>>>>>>> is due >>>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue. >>>>>>>> rev = 545314 >>>>>>>> check inventory=Y >>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y >>>>>>>> require inventory=N >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>> For ERP Information: >>>>>>>> >> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp? >> nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic >> es >>>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> >>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>> >>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>> For ERP Information: >>>>>> >> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp? >> nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic >> es >>>>>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: >> 10/24/2007 2:31 PM > smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment |
In reply to this post by jonwimp
Hmmm, well, now with our feet firmly back on the ground, I just got finished
with two patent lawsuits (others suing us). The guys suing us had just successfully shut down another competitor with a better product (even better than ours I must admit) and this is even though the patent in question was 15 years old for something really vague and everyone does it (essentially translating various incoming datastreams into a common format altough slightly complicated by a mainframe connection). We won our lawsuits, but it cost us 7.5 million dollars which in the U.S. is uncollectable even though these lawsuits were so farfetched and could just put us out of business even though we won. Worse, this was for technology we had abandoned years ago and developed (but did not patent) before these guys were out of high school. The idea of the patent is not to control others (unless your a certain unnamed ex-Novell executive (SCO caugh-caugh)), it's to protect yourself from these kinds of sharks. Before you scoff, read this: http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/14468/red_hat_novell_linux_sued_on_ patent_claims and note this: "IP Inovations .... has no products ...that exists solely to license a portfolio ... and pursue patent infringement claims against anyone it "believes" is violating those patents. (quotes are mine) After 3 years of fighting these pirates, I wish I had taken the "angst and trouble" to file the patent claim. That would have cost $500 and 2 hours instead of 7.5 million and months of depositions. Skip -----Original Message----- From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:17 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items I agree with BJ. A lawyer friend here (very good lawyer too) also had the same idea that patents make for good control. I told him the exact same thing that BJ just mentioned. Patents make for clear concessions (for the patent holder). But then, lawyers do make a living suing for patent infringements. Just that for business folks, it's too much angst and trouble to file a suit that doesn't translate to constructive business endeavor (like making new products, services). It's about how fast we can move ahead, not about how much we can prevent others from moving ahead. Jonathon skip@theDevers wrote: > Sage advice all! > > -----Original Message----- > From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:47 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items > > > Learned a valuable lesson from my Granddad and dad > we have a mfgr company that was special niche > for years we had competitors that tried to get market share > but we were the leader in the field. > so when I went to work for them, I was very concerned about the patents. > they said. > patents only keep them from stopping us from making it. > but our innovation is what keeps up in front. > so from my perspective, holding on to rights only protects me from > someone saying I don't have the right to do it. > with apache I don't worry about that. > and my innovation keeps me ahead. > what I share here is something I did months ago, but just getting around > to adding it to ofbiz > > > > skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/24/2007 7:19 PM: >> BJ >> >> You're way to easy on your customers. Giving us hard-axxxs a bad name. >> always keep the rights to the code I write unless it's a salaried long > term >> job. >> >> Skip >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:44 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >> >> >> the online service is fee based. sorry. >> however what I am proposing here would be a big boone to us all >> and that, after I get the supplier emails running, is my next task, if I >> am allowed >> >> >> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:36 PM: >>> Wanna share the code? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >>> >>> >>> skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for >>> webstores. >>> been doing it since 1998. >>> see my other email. >>> >>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM: >>>> BJ >>>> >>>> This logic gets very complicated very quickly. You can throw into the >> mix >>>> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times. Maybe >>> the >>>> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10. Its even more >> complicated >>>> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to > order >>> a >>>> hundred. It gets even more complicated still if.... >>>> >>>> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right >> in >>>> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective). Two years of >>>> tweeking that it is. I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I >> knew >>>> for sure what to do. Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and > case >>>> three where I didn't have a clue. >>>> >>>> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2 >>>> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve. >>> has >>>> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and >>> is >>>> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for >>> changes. >>>> Skip >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM >>>> To: [hidden email] >>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >>>> >>>> >>>> Ok lets take it from the item issuance. >>>> here is the scenario. >>>> one product >>>> two suppliers >>>> one used to refill local stock >>>> one one to dropship. >>>> >>>> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that >>>> refills local stock. >>>> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used. >>>> >>>> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending >>>> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to >>>> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper. >>>> >>>> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of >>>> shipping date to customer >>>> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back >>> orders. >>>> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility >>>> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that >>>> would best suit the configuration for a client. >>>> >>>> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming >>>> of ofbiz. >>>> >>>> >>>> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM: >>>>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ... >>>>> >>>>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a >>>>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping >>>>> without inventory in stock is allowed. >>>>> >>>>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as >>>>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the >>>>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the >>>>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock > (ie >>>>> does the stock out). >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the >>>>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a >>>>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as >>>>>> well. >>>>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery >>>>>> of the product which is part of ERP. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM: >>>>>>> BJ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs. However, a property which >>>>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skip >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM >>>>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some >>>>>>> fulfillment houses. >>>>>>> you don't have their inventory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM: >>>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug. On the other hand, there are >>>>>>>> folks >>>>>>> who >>>>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like >>>>>>>> that). So, >>>>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false (tongue in cheek) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done. I want >>>>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc > for >>>>>>> quick >>>>>>>> ship. I was just about to start work on this. We could modify the >>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better >>>>>>>> bookkeeping >>>>>>> / >>>>>>>> automatic ordering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the >>>>>>>> counter >>>>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he >>>>>>>> has to >>>>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to >>>>>>>> get it >>>>>>>> all done right. It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for >>>>>>> Fixing >>>>>>>> the quickship will take care of it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so >>>>>>>> reluctant to accept it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Skip >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM >>>>>>>> To: [hidden email] >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP >>>>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a >>>>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card and "ship" a physical product >>>>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available? >>>>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm >>>>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it >>>>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, >>>>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc. >>>>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix. >>>>>>>> It will most likely be rejected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to >>>>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part >>>>>>>>>>>> of it's processing. >>>>>>>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates >>>>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the >>>>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was >>>>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock >>>>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rev = 545314 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y >>>>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > |
In reply to this post by SkipDever
Hi Skip,
Skip wrote: > Dave > > This is a requirement for me too as well as EOQ purchasing, and I am sure > for all the rest of my old customers that I approach after the current > customer is mostly happy. I have a couple more weeks of tweeking to do in > sales order entry and billing accounts and then I'll be doing this. > about billing accounts: if I am not wrong one of the issues you've discovered in their current implementation (recently refactored) is this one: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1243 Hopefully I will work on it very soon... Jacopo > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Tenerowicz [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:44 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items > > > Skip- > Agree. I was not suggesting that a fix would be unconditional. Rather, > something along the lines you suggest here- a conditional property that > can be checked to determine whether or not stock should be checked > before issuing. For this particular client this is an absolute > requirement. In fact, this has been an client expectation / requirement > for most of the ERP implementations I have done (most not with OFB). > > > -Dave > > Skip wrote: >> Dave >> >> I agree that this is a big hole/bug. On the other hand, there are folks > who >> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that). So, >> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like: >> >> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false (tongue in cheek) >> >> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done. I want >> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for > quick >> ship. I was just about to start work on this. We could modify the > existing >> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better bookkeeping > / >> automatic ordering. >> >> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter >> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to >> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it >> all done right. It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him. > Fixing >> the quickship will take care of it. >> >> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so >> reluctant to accept it. >> >> Skip >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David E Jones [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >> >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >> >> >>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP >>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user >>> to charge a customers credit card and "ship" a physical product >>> that the system "knew" was not available? >>> >> For some users the system doesn't know everything... >> >> >>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm >>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it >>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, >>> leaving an audit trail etc. >>> >> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way. >> >> >>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed. >>> >>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix. >>> >> It will most likely be rejected. >> >> -David >> >> >> >>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, there ya go! >>>>> >>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels... >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to >>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part >>>>>> of it's processing. >>>>>> -Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates >>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the >>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was >>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock >>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is >>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue. >>>>>>>> rev = 545314 >>>>>>>> check inventory=Y >>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y >>>>>>>> require inventory=N >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> >>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>> >>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> -- >>> Dave Tenerowicz >>> [hidden email] >>> >>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>> >>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Dave Tenerowicz > [hidden email] > > Office: 303.493.6727 > Mobile 303.906.6116 > Fax 303.814.8330 > > Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com > For ERP Information: > http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic > es > |
In reply to this post by David E Jones
> You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon?
Yup. > Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd > probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week, > 30 of which spent on politic-ing. ;) We (Singaporeans) would like to believe that we are productive, constructive. ;) Seriously speaking, Singaporean policies and systems have been quite efficient. Very little politicking. We have good men and women in management. But yes, we average citizens still complain that we're not getting enough freedom of movement (and speech) to exercise our capitalistic ingenuity (not that we actually succeed when we venture out to Taiwan, China) and our creative streaks. The few instances of corruption (like the NKF, charitable organization, saga) are exceptions. Police or official corruption is dealt with severely. I think the basic idea is "a hard rod to maintain strict accountability". But I do agree we somehow fall behind places like San Fran in terms of being a brain magnet. Singapore has made concessions, possibly attempting to make life here more "colorful", such as by building a casino (our first!). This country has strict code of morals (not that we all follow them all, but they do influence us some). We have no adult superstores here (last I saw). Please do come here. :) We need all the brains we can get. The whole country is as squeaky clean as downtown in San Fran, or more so. As for pretty sceneries... we have... tall pretty buildings. :P Oh well. > It's all about collaboration and I don't think top-down management > is very healthy for that. I see myself as more of a moderator, just > trying to keep things flowing in a reasonable direction and raising > red flags when things seem to stray from that (not that I'm always > right when I do!). Ok, then I suppose you like biting your nails and pulling out your hair quite a bit. :) Always a trade-off between "ease of control" and "proliferation of ideas". Good luck handling us humans! I think I'd rather deal with computers and all their bugs. Jonathon David E Jones wrote: > > You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon? > > Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd > probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week, 30 of > which spent on politic-ing. ;) > > Sometimes it would be nice if my involvement in OFBiz was as a "manager" > or a "dictator", even if a benign or benevolent one, but that's really > not what this open source project is all about (some, mostly commercial > driven ones, are a bit more totalitarian). It's all about collaboration > and I don't think top-down management is very healthy for that. I see > myself as more of a moderator, just trying to keep things flowing in a > reasonable direction and raising red flags when things seem to stray > from that (not that I'm always right when I do!). > > This is one of the reasons why there isn't really an end goal or project > plan as there should always be for a traditional organization or > product. There has been some discussion about a road map, which I do > think would be valuable for all, but not as a top-down management sort > of thing, more as a chance for people to collaborate more effectively by > communicating what we'd all like to see in the near and distant future > for the project. > > -David > > > On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > >> Haha! Hahaha!! Skip, yeah, you're right. I live in a country so >> focused on efficiency, we may actually have some kind of formula for >> lawmaker to citizen ratio! We also control the number of varsity >> graduates to exactly match market demands. >> >> With efficiency lessons etched so hard into our skulls, I feel for >> David Jones as he tries to manage a world-wide (and tremendously >> varied) pool of contributors and contributions. My country is a >> socialist republic. Maybe David would be happy here. The phrase >> "benign dictator" sounds like such an oxymoron (how to achieve?). But >> that seems to be what works, from history's lessons. >> >> I don't think my government would consider "having more laws (or >> lawmakers) than there are citizens to follow them laws". Hmm. Curious. >> >> Jonathon >> >> skip@theDevers wrote: >>> "So many people, so few lawmakers." Gads Jonathon, you obviously >>> don't live >>> in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :) >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >>> Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate (or >>> largely >>> missing) parts in >>> OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, maybe). >>> But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in on >>> it), and >>> just one soup (OFBiz, >>> framework, foundation functionalities). >>> I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to prevent >>> cyclists >>> from cycling on >>> pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they >>> realized >>> that not everyone cycles >>> at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on the >>> roadsides >>> can be terribly scary >>> for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to make >>> a law >>> that fines me for >>> cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few >>> lawmakers. >>> Jonathon >>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP >>>> system to >>>> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to charge a >>>> customers credit card and "ship" a physical product that the system >>>> "knew" was not available? >>>> >>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm that >>>> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would >>>> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, leaving an >>>> audit trail etc. >>>> >>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed. >>>> >>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> Well, there ya go! >>>>>> >>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels... >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to >>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of >>>>>>> it's processing. >>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments, >>>>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing >>>>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do >>>>>>>> it somehow). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock >>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due >>>>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue. >>>>>>>>> rev = 545314 >>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y >>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y >>>>>>>>> require inventory=N >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: >>>>>>>>> >>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic >>> >>> es >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>> For ERP Information: >>>>>>> >>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic >>> >>> es >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: >>> 10/24/2007 2:31 PM >> > |
On Oct 25, 2007, at 12:13 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > > Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd > > probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week, > > 30 of which spent on politic-ing. ;) > > We (Singaporeans) would like to believe that we are productive, > constructive. ;) > > Seriously speaking, Singaporean policies and systems have been > quite efficient. Very little politicking. We have good men and > women in management. But yes, we average citizens still complain > that we're not getting enough freedom of movement (and speech) to > exercise our capitalistic ingenuity (not that we actually succeed > when we venture out to Taiwan, China) and our creative streaks. > > The few instances of corruption (like the NKF, charitable > organization, saga) are exceptions. Police or official corruption > is dealt with severely. I think the basic idea is "a hard rod to > maintain strict accountability". > > But I do agree we somehow fall behind places like San Fran in terms > of being a brain magnet. Singapore has made concessions, possibly > attempting to make life here more "colorful", such as by building a > casino (our first!). This country has strict code of morals (not > that we all follow them all, but they do influence us some). We > have no adult superstores here (last I saw). city ;), though not bad). Totalitarian societies are certainly efficient, history is full of that, but not much fun, and not always that just (turn up the knob too high on anything non-deterministic and you'll get lots of false positives). I can only stand being productive for so many hours each day. > Please do come here. :) We need all the brains we can get. > > The whole country is as squeaky clean as downtown in San Fran, or > more so. As for pretty sceneries... we have... tall pretty > buildings. :P Oh well. I'd be happy to visit sometime should the opportunity present itself. Most of my travel has historically been for business, though this year I've dropped from about 3-4 months of travel per year to about 3-4 weeks (and most of that within a couple of hours from here...). > > It's all about collaboration and I don't think top-down management > > is very healthy for that. I see myself as more of a moderator, just > > trying to keep things flowing in a reasonable direction and raising > > red flags when things seem to stray from that (not that I'm always > > right when I do!). > > Ok, then I suppose you like biting your nails and pulling out your > hair quite a bit. :) Always a trade-off between "ease of control" > and "proliferation of ideas". Yes, I suppose that's the point. Fortunately I have not commitments to hit with OFBiz itself, so it can be frustrating to see certain things happen, but not really all that stressful. People will do what they do, but that's part of the beauty. I'd take working on an open source project for free over paid work any day though, WAY for more fun and less stressful (of course doing what you want instead of what someone else wants often is, especially when that other person wanting isn't being very nice). > Good luck handling us humans! I think I'd rather deal with > computers and all their bugs. Well, if any computer has a bug it is a human's fault. They are deterministic after all (except for hardware problems!). It is nice though that because of the determinism any bug can be discovered (sometimes more effort is required than one would like though...). Still, the other side is that everything that exists was designed by a human, nothing is "natural", it is ALL contrived and just piles upon piles of definitions. -David > David E Jones wrote: >> You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon? >> Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd >> probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week, >> 30 of which spent on politic-ing. ;) >> Sometimes it would be nice if my involvement in OFBiz was as a >> "manager" or a "dictator", even if a benign or benevolent one, but >> that's really not what this open source project is all about >> (some, mostly commercial driven ones, are a bit more >> totalitarian). It's all about collaboration and I don't think top- >> down management is very healthy for that. I see myself as more of >> a moderator, just trying to keep things flowing in a reasonable >> direction and raising red flags when things seem to stray from >> that (not that I'm always right when I do!). >> This is one of the reasons why there isn't really an end goal or >> project plan as there should always be for a traditional >> organization or product. There has been some discussion about a >> road map, which I do think would be valuable for all, but not as a >> top-down management sort of thing, more as a chance for people to >> collaborate more effectively by communicating what we'd all like >> to see in the near and distant future for the project. >> -David >> On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: >>> Haha! Hahaha!! Skip, yeah, you're right. I live in a country so >>> focused on efficiency, we may actually have some kind of formula >>> for lawmaker to citizen ratio! We also control the number of >>> varsity graduates to exactly match market demands. >>> >>> With efficiency lessons etched so hard into our skulls, I feel >>> for David Jones as he tries to manage a world-wide (and >>> tremendously varied) pool of contributors and contributions. My >>> country is a socialist republic. Maybe David would be happy here. >>> The phrase "benign dictator" sounds like such an oxymoron (how to >>> achieve?). But that seems to be what works, from history's lessons. >>> >>> I don't think my government would consider "having more laws (or >>> lawmakers) than there are citizens to follow them laws". Hmm. >>> Curious. >>> >>> Jonathon >>> >>> skip@theDevers wrote: >>>> "So many people, so few lawmakers." Gads Jonathon, you >>>> obviously don't live >>>> in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :) >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM >>>> To: [hidden email] >>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >>>> Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate >>>> (or largely >>>> missing) parts in >>>> OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, >>>> maybe). >>>> But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in >>>> on it), and >>>> just one soup (OFBiz, >>>> framework, foundation functionalities). >>>> I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to >>>> prevent cyclists >>>> from cycling on >>>> pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they >>>> realized >>>> that not everyone cycles >>>> at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on >>>> the roadsides >>>> can be terribly scary >>>> for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to >>>> make a law >>>> that fines me for >>>> cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few >>>> lawmakers. >>>> Jonathon >>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP >>>>> system to >>>>> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to >>>>> charge a >>>>> customers credit card and "ship" a physical product that the >>>>> system >>>>> "knew" was not available? >>>>> >>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to >>>>> confirm that >>>>> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it >>>>> would >>>>> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, >>>>> leaving an >>>>> audit trail etc. >>>>> >>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed. >>>>> >>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>> >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>> Well, there ya go! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to >>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as >>>>>>>> part of >>>>>>>> it's processing. >>>>>>>> -Dave >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates >>>>>>>>> shipments, >>>>>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or >>>>>>>>> packing >>>>>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to >>>>>>>>> automatically do >>>>>>>>> it somehow). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -David >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock >>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing >>>>>>>>>> this is due >>>>>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue. >>>>>>>>>> rev = 545314 >>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y >>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y >>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: >>>>>>>>>> >>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp? >>>> nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic >>>> es >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>> For ERP Information: >>>>>>>> >>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp? >>>> nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic >>>> es >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> ------ >>>>> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: >>>> 10/24/2007 2:31 PM >>> > smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment |
In reply to this post by jonwimp
I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts. For me,
captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated captureBillingAccountPayment does not. However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it the right thing to do in this case). My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) { which for me is always empty and never gets executed. Can the author comment? Is there some case where this will contain paymentApplications? Skip |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato
Jacopo
Already got this fixed, but you won't like my solution so I havent offered it back. I am just now about to write a new A/R service the I WILL offer back. Skip -----Original Message----- From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:04 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Billing Accounts and payment applications WAS Re: shipments made for out of stock items Hi Skip, Skip wrote: > Dave > > This is a requirement for me too as well as EOQ purchasing, and I am sure > for all the rest of my old customers that I approach after the current > customer is mostly happy. I have a couple more weeks of tweeking to do in > sales order entry and billing accounts and then I'll be doing this. > about billing accounts: if I am not wrong one of the issues you've discovered in their current implementation (recently refactored) is this one: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1243 Hopefully I will work on it very soon... Jacopo > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Tenerowicz [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:44 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items > > > Skip- > Agree. I was not suggesting that a fix would be unconditional. Rather, > something along the lines you suggest here- a conditional property that > can be checked to determine whether or not stock should be checked > before issuing. For this particular client this is an absolute > requirement. In fact, this has been an client expectation / requirement > for most of the ERP implementations I have done (most not with OFB). > > > -Dave > > Skip wrote: >> Dave >> >> I agree that this is a big hole/bug. On the other hand, there are folks > who >> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that). So, >> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like: >> >> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false (tongue in cheek) >> >> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done. I want >> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for > quick >> ship. I was just about to start work on this. We could modify the > existing >> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better > / >> automatic ordering. >> >> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter >> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to >> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it >> all done right. It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him. > Fixing >> the quickship will take care of it. >> >> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so >> reluctant to accept it. >> >> Skip >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David E Jones [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items >> >> >> >> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >> >> >>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP >>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user >>> to charge a customers credit card and "ship" a physical product >>> that the system "knew" was not available? >>> >> For some users the system doesn't know everything... >> >> >>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm >>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it >>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, >>> leaving an audit trail etc. >>> >> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way. >> >> >>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed. >>> >>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix. >>> >> It will most likely be rejected. >> >> -David >> >> >> >>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, there ya go! >>>>> >>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels... >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to >>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part >>>>>> of it's processing. >>>>>> -Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates >>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the >>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was >>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock >>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is >>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue. >>>>>>>> rev = 545314 >>>>>>>> check inventory=Y >>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y >>>>>>>> require inventory=N >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>> >>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>> >>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> -- >>> Dave Tenerowicz >>> [hidden email] >>> >>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>> >>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Dave Tenerowicz > [hidden email] > > Office: 303.493.6727 > Mobile 303.906.6116 > Fax 303.814.8330 > > Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com > For ERP Information: > > es > |
In reply to this post by jonwimp
"adult superstores". Only in San Fran. Come to most places in the U.S. and they would be burned inside of 10 days of opening. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:14 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for out of stock items) > You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon? Yup. |
In reply to this post by SkipDever
skip@theDevers wrote:
> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts. For me, > captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated > captureBillingAccountPayment does not. > > However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it > the right thing to do in this case). > > My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the > > > if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) { > > which for me is always empty and never gets executed. > > Can the author comment? Is there some case where this will contain > paymentApplications? > > Skip Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$. You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId. Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true --> a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice; the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available' amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther invoice... At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID. Does it make sense? Jacopo |
Jacopo
Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second question. Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices. The customer pays for all 4 invoices. Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends it back for a credit. The following week, he buys something else. Is there some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options? Could the same logic be used? Skip -----Original Message----- From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments skip@theDevers wrote: > I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts. For me, > captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated > captureBillingAccountPayment does not. > > However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it > the right thing to do in this case). > > My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the > > > if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) { > > which for me is always empty and never gets executed. > > Can the author comment? Is there some case where this will contain > paymentApplications? > > Skip Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$. You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId. Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true --> a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice; the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available' amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther invoice... At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID. Does it make sense? Jacopo |
skip@theDevers wrote:
> Jacopo > > Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second > question. Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices. The customer > pays for all 4 invoices. Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends it > back for a credit. The following week, he buys something else. Is there > some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options? > Could the same logic be used? > Yes, the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong): 1) a customer return is created for 2 items 2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated to the customer 3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing account (that can be used during order entry) This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know. Jacopo > > > Skip > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments > > > skip@theDevers wrote: >> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts. For me, >> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated >> captureBillingAccountPayment does not. >> >> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it >> the right thing to do in this case). >> >> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the >> >> >> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) { >> >> which for me is always empty and never gets executed. >> >> Can the author comment? Is there some case where this will contain >> paymentApplications? >> >> Skip > > Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated > to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$. > You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole > payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication > record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId. > Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click > on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the > captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the > PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found > --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true --> > a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice; > the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available' > amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther > invoice... > At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID. > > Does it make sense? > > Jacopo > > |
In reply to this post by SkipDever
skip@theDevers wrote:
> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts. For me, > captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated > captureBillingAccountPayment does not. > Actually not only for you: in my opinion the service that we have deprecated during the refactoring are simply wrong because they were based on wrong assumptions on the meaning and logic of billing accounts. As soon as the new stuff is consolidated we should remove them. Jacopo |
In reply to this post by SkipDever
Oh, good to know! But I saw some in Arizona too. Definitely Nevada. Maybe not Oregon or mid west.
Jonathon skip@theDevers wrote: > "adult superstores". Only in San Fran. Come to most places in the U.S. and > they would be burned inside of 10 days of opening. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:14 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for > out of stock items) > > > > You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon? > > Yup. > > > |
Careful, this might degrade into a "where to find adult stores in the USA" topic... Actually, the world not always as it would seem or as many would like it to be. I live in one of the more conservative (not really totalitarian, but frequently intolerant) states, namely Utah, and such things even exist here... though I'm sure not to the extent of other places in the USA, like San Francisco. It's not a bad comparison in general. Governance is governance. While we want to keep things "clean" in OFBiz, I think we also want to be very tolerant. This is often wise, just in case one finds out one was wrong or had limited vision and failed to see the "big picture". Of course, in OFBiz it's not a moral issue but an issue of what some call "best practices" or "business process purity". Some such things certainly exist, but they are hard to define in terms of the innumerable varieties of business structures and processes that are perfectly legal and valid. -David On Oct 25, 2007, at 3:09 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > Oh, good to know! But I saw some in Arizona too. Definitely Nevada. > Maybe not Oregon or mid west. > > Jonathon > > skip@theDevers wrote: >> "adult superstores". Only in San Fran. Come to most places in >> the U.S. and >> they would be burned inside of 10 days of opening. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:14 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments >> made for >> out of stock items) >> > You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon? >> Yup. > smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment |
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato
Jacopo
Tried the create a store credit thing and got this error: The Following Errors Occurred: Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission] Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] when I clicked "Accept Return" What I did was: 1. Click "Order" tab, then check "Completed" and click submit. 2. Picked an existing completed order on DemoCustCust for one WG-1111 3. Clicked "Create Return" button 2/3rds down toward the right side. 4. Selected "Store Credit" from the drop down list for the item and two tax entries (0.00 each for the tax entries) then clicked "return selected items". 5. Checked the "Select All" box and clicked "Return Items" 6. Clicked the "Accept Return" button. Here is the relevant part of the stack trace: 2007-10-25 08:46:43,361 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [ ModelService.java:484:ERROR] [ModelService.validate] : {createTrackingCodeOrderReturns} : (IN) Required test error: org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] 2007-10-25 08:46:43,371 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [ ServiceDispatcher.java:355:ERROR] ---- exception report ---------------------------------------------------------- Incoming context (in runSync : createTrackingCodeOrderReturns) does not match expected requirements Exception: org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException Message: Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] ---- stack trace --------------------------------------------------------------- org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] org.ofbiz.service.ModelService.validate(ModelService.java:552) -----Original Message----- From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments skip@theDevers wrote: > Jacopo > > Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second > question. Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices. The customer > pays for all 4 invoices. Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends it > back for a credit. The following week, he buys something else. Is there > some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options? > Could the same logic be used? > Yes, the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong): 1) a customer return is created for 2 items 2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated to the customer 3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing account (that can be used during order entry) This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know. Jacopo > > > Skip > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments > > > skip@theDevers wrote: >> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts. For me, >> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated >> captureBillingAccountPayment does not. >> >> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it >> the right thing to do in this case). >> >> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the >> >> >> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) { >> >> which for me is always empty and never gets executed. >> >> Can the author comment? Is there some case where this will contain >> paymentApplications? >> >> Skip > > Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated > to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$. > You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole > payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication > record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId. > Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click > on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the > captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the > PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found > --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true --> > a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice; > the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available' > amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther > invoice... > At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID. > > Does it make sense? > > Jacopo > > |
This seems one of the errors introduced with the last framework
improvements... I'm sure that others will jump in and help to fix this. Are you running the latest trunk revision? Jacopo skip@theDevers wrote: > Jacopo > > Tried the create a store credit thing and got this error: > > > > The Following Errors Occurred: > > Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission] > > Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] > > > > when I clicked "Accept Return" > > What I did was: > > 1. Click "Order" tab, then check "Completed" and click submit. > > 2. Picked an existing completed order on DemoCustCust for one WG-1111 > > 3. Clicked "Create Return" button 2/3rds down toward the right side. > > 4. Selected "Store Credit" from the drop down list for the item and two tax > entries (0.00 each for the tax entries) then clicked "return selected > items". > > 5. Checked the "Select All" box and clicked "Return Items" > > 6. Clicked the "Accept Return" button. > > > Here is the relevant part of the stack trace: > > 2007-10-25 08:46:43,361 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [ > ModelService.java:484:ERROR] [ModelService.validate] : > {createTrackingCodeOrderReturns} : (IN) Required test error: > org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] > 2007-10-25 08:46:43,371 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [ > ServiceDispatcher.java:355:ERROR] > ---- exception > report ---------------------------------------------------------- > Incoming context (in runSync : createTrackingCodeOrderReturns) does not > match expected requirements > Exception: org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException > Message: Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] > ---- stack > trace --------------------------------------------------------------- > org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] > org.ofbiz.service.ModelService.validate(ModelService.java:552) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments > > > skip@theDevers wrote: >> Jacopo >> >> Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second >> question. Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices. The > customer >> pays for all 4 invoices. Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends > it >> back for a credit. The following week, he buys something else. Is there >> some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options? >> Could the same logic be used? >> > > Yes, > > the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong): > > 1) a customer return is created for 2 items > 2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store > (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated > to the customer > 3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing > account (that can be used during order entry) > This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know. > > Jacopo > > >> >> Skip >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments >> >> >> skip@theDevers wrote: >>> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts. For me, >>> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated >>> captureBillingAccountPayment does not. >>> >>> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it >>> the right thing to do in this case). >>> >>> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the >>> >>> >>> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) { >>> >>> which for me is always empty and never gets executed. >>> >>> Can the author comment? Is there some case where this will contain >>> paymentApplications? >>> >>> Skip >> Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated >> to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$. >> You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole >> payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication >> record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId. >> Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click >> on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the >> captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the >> PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found >> --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true --> >> a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice; >> the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available' >> amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther >> invoice... >> At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID. >> >> Does it make sense? >> >> Jacopo >> >> > |
In reply to this post by SkipDever
Rev 586938 is what you need.
skip@theDevers wrote: > Jacopo > > Tried the create a store credit thing and got this error: > > > > The Following Errors Occurred: > > Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission] > > Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] > > > > when I clicked "Accept Return" > > What I did was: > > 1. Click "Order" tab, then check "Completed" and click submit. > > 2. Picked an existing completed order on DemoCustCust for one WG-1111 > > 3. Clicked "Create Return" button 2/3rds down toward the right side. > > 4. Selected "Store Credit" from the drop down list for the item and two tax > entries (0.00 each for the tax entries) then clicked "return selected > items". > > 5. Checked the "Select All" box and clicked "Return Items" > > 6. Clicked the "Accept Return" button. > > > Here is the relevant part of the stack trace: > > 2007-10-25 08:46:43,361 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [ > ModelService.java:484:ERROR] [ModelService.validate] : > {createTrackingCodeOrderReturns} : (IN) Required test error: > org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] > 2007-10-25 08:46:43,371 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [ > ServiceDispatcher.java:355:ERROR] > ---- exception > report ---------------------------------------------------------- > Incoming context (in runSync : createTrackingCodeOrderReturns) does not > match expected requirements > Exception: org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException > Message: Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] > ---- stack > trace --------------------------------------------------------------- > org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found: > [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage] > org.ofbiz.service.ModelService.validate(ModelService.java:552) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments > > > skip@theDevers wrote: > >>Jacopo >> >>Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second >>question. Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices. The > > customer > >>pays for all 4 invoices. Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends > > it > >>back for a credit. The following week, he buys something else. Is there >>some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options? >>Could the same logic be used? >> > > > Yes, > > the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong): > > 1) a customer return is created for 2 items > 2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store > (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated > to the customer > 3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing > account (that can be used during order entry) > This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know. > > Jacopo > > > >> >>Skip >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[hidden email]] >>Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM >>To: [hidden email] >>Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments >> >> >>skip@theDevers wrote: >> >>>I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts. For me, >>>captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated >>>captureBillingAccountPayment does not. >>> >>>However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it >>>the right thing to do in this case). >>> >>>My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the >>> >>> >>> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) { >>> >>>which for me is always empty and never gets executed. >>> >>>Can the author comment? Is there some case where this will contain >>>paymentApplications? >>> >>>Skip >> >>Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated >>to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$. >>You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole >>payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication >>record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId. >>Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click >>on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the >>captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the >>PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found >>--> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true --> >>a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice; >>the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available' >>amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther >>invoice... >>At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID. >> >>Does it make sense? >> >>Jacopo >> >> > > > > |
In reply to this post by BJ Freeman
There is a many to many relationship between OrderHeader table and
TrackingCode table. I thought many(OrderHeader) to one(TrackingCode) should be good enough. Could anyone please tell me what's the design idea(or business benefit) behind this ? William |
split shipments
William Perng sent the following on 10/25/2007 1:24 PM: > There is a many to many relationship between OrderHeader table and > TrackingCode table. I thought many(OrderHeader) to one(TrackingCode) should > be good enough. Could anyone please tell me what's the design idea(or > business benefit) behind this ? > > William > > > > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |