svn commit: r502824 - /ofbiz/trunk/applications/prod
Locked
svn commit: r502824 - /ofbiz/trunk/applications/prod
 
|
Re: svn commit: r502824 - /ofbiz/trunk/applications/prod
|
|
Hold on a minute there.... did you actually test and find this to be a problem? The +/- notation is an entity engine ONLY thing and should never make it to the database. This patch should be reverted and if +/- are making it to the database instead of being replaced with an ASC/DESC by the entity engine then THAT bug should be fixed. This is a slippery slope and we should backup to the top before it gets going... -David On Feb 2, 2007, at 6:16 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Author: sichen > Date: Fri Feb 2 17:16:36 2007 > New Revision: 502824 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=502824 > Log: > Fix a pretty significant bug with sequence of inventory item > reservations for orders: FIFO and LIFO were reversed (I checked > this) and the +/- notation does not work well with PostgreSQL > > Modified: > ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/ > inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml > > Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/ > inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/ > script/org/ofbiz/product/inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml? > view=diff&rev=502824&r1=502823&r2=502824 > ====================================================================== > ======== > --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/ > inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml (original) > +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/ > inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml Fri Feb 2 17:16:36 2007 > @@ -42,23 +42,26 @@ > <entity-one entity-name="OrderHeader" value- > name="orderHeader"/> > > <!-- before we do the find, put together the orderBy list > based on which reserveOrderEnumId is specified --> > + <!-- FIFO=first in first out, so it should be order by > ASCending receive or expire date > + LIFO=last in first out, so it means order by > DESCending receive or expire date > + --> > <if-compare value="INVRO_GUNIT_COST" operator="equals" > field-name="reserveOrderEnumId" map-name="parameters"> > - <set value="-unitCost" field="orderByString"/> > + <set value="unitCost DESC" field="orderByString"/> > <else> > <if-compare value="INVRO_LUNIT_COST" operator="equals" > field-name="reserveOrderEnumId" map-name="parameters"> > - <set value="+unitCost" field="orderByString"/> > + <set value="unitCost ASC" field="orderByString"/> > <else> > <if-compare value="INVRO_FIFO_EXP" > operator="equals" field-name="reserveOrderEnumId" map- > name="parameters"> > - <set value="+expireDate" field="orderByString"/> > + <set value="expireDate ASC" > field="orderByString"/> > <else> > <if-compare value="INVRO_LIFO_EXP" > operator="equals" field-name="reserveOrderEnumId" map- > name="parameters"> > - <set value="-expireDate" > field="orderByString"/> > + <set value="expireDate DESC" > field="orderByString"/> > <else> > <if-compare value="INVRO_LIFO_REC" > operator="equals" field-name="reserveOrderEnumId" map- > name="parameters"> > - <set value="+datetimeReceived" > field="orderByString"/> > + <set value="datetimeReceived DESC" > field="orderByString"/> > <else> > <!-- the default reserveOrderEnumId is > INVRO_FIFO_REC, ie FIFO based on date received --> > - <set value="-datetimeReceived" > field="orderByString"/> > + <set value="datetimeReceived ASC" > field="orderByString"/> > <set value="INVRO_FIFO_REC" > field="parameters.reserveOrderEnumId"/> > </else> > </if-compare> > > |
smime.p7s (3K) | Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |