OFBiz - Re: Users

May 11, 2006; 6:14pm

The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense.

Charles Johnson wrote:

Si Chen wrote:

Yes to both.

However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky.  Search the emails from 
last Nov/Dec here or look in our crm app's seed data for some examples 
of how to conform to OFBiz standards. 

Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz 
server? :)

Charles Johnson wrote:

Just some general advice about Party/PartyRole please:

a. I take it that it's legitimate to leave Party 'Company' with that id
and to alter its other attributes as appropriate?
b. Is it legitimate for 'Company' to have the role EMPLOYER, as opposed
to that role being taken by a Person?

CJ

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users

 >>

Last of all--did you get my emails last week, sent from our demo ofbiz 
server? :)

Yes i did thanks and thought i'd replied to you about that. You kindly sent me two sets. One of the responses i sent was undeliverable and that i only just discovered today. Let me know if you need more info.

However, PartyRelationship can be a bit tricky. 

Indeed. This seems to be anomalous (hope you can view html mail in this case):

The Profile of Alison Wilson [10050]

Member Roles

*Role*

Salaried employee [PAID_EMPLOYEE]

//=============================================================================================

The Profile of Alison Wilson [10050]
Relationships
* Description*

* From Date*

Party *10050* in role *Salaried employee* is a *Employee* of party 
*Company* in role *Employer*

 2003-01-01 00:00:00.000
	[Remove] 
<https://127.0.0.1:8443/partymgr/control/deletePartyRelationship?partyIdTo=10050&roleTypeIdTo=PAID_EMPLOYEE&roleTypeIdFrom=EMPLOYER&partyIdFrom=Company&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.000&partyId=10050>  

*Thru Date: * Calendar 
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
 href="javascript:call_cal(document.updatePartyRel0.thruDate,null);"><javascript:call_cal(document.updatePartyRel0.thruDate, null);> 
*Comments: *

Party *Company* in role *Employer* is a *Employee* of party *10050* in 
role *Salaried employee*

 2003-01-01 00:00:00.000
	[Remove] 
<https://127.0.0.1:8443/partymgr/control/deletePartyRelationship?partyIdTo=Company&roleTypeIdTo=EMPLOYER&roleTypeIdFrom=PAID_EMPLOYEE&partyIdFrom=10050&fromDate=2003-01-01%2000:00:00.000&partyId=10050>  

CJ

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users

The second party relationship should be removed - it doesn't make sense.
>>

Yes - that's the point, but here it is in PartyRelationship:

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: Users - Company as Employer