Re: Dev - right way to set up party relationship

Posted by David E. Jones on
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Dev-right-way-to-set-up-party-relationship-tp166405p166409.html


Okay, and what would be the reason for changing this convention that  
has been there for years?

There are many more than you list here. The promo code is in a worker  
and not a service as it is primarily used by the shopping cart object.

Even the accounting extensions use this order for group members and  
such.

It is true that some code doesn't care about the order, but there is  
quite a bit of code that does.

So, the question is why would be want to change it so that the  
relationship description describes the from instead of the to?

-David


On Dec 21, 2005, at 4:41 PM, Si Chen wrote:

> So just some further thoughts about this one
>
> 1.  The PartyRelationship services can go either way.  They make no  
> judgement about the meaning of a relationship.
>
> 2.  The only relationship that is actually used in the system right  
> now seems to be "GROUP_ROLLUP" and it is named "Group Member"  It  
> appears that the edit party relationship screens are written in the  
> "${partyIdTo} is ${partyRelationshipName} for ${partyIdFrom}" so  
> that the GROUP_ROLLUP relationships are displayed correctly.
>
> 3.  I've found that PriceServices use GROUP_ROLLUP relationship  
> only.  I did not find any PromoServices using PartyRelationship.
>
> I think the solution is really to:
> 1.  Change the descriptive name of "GROUP_ROLLUP" to "Group with  
> Member"
>
> 2.  Alter the party relationship screen to "${partyIdFrom} is $
> {partyRelationshipName} for ${partyIdTo}"
>
> 3.  I don't think it would affect PriceServices either way.  If  
> there are other parts of the code that it would affect, I'd be  
> happy to take a look at them.
>
> I think it would be nice if we could conform to the data model  
> resource book standard, as it would be more intuitively sensible  
> for the future when there are different types of relationships.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Si
>
> Si Chen wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I just checked the Data Model and Resources Book, and they have it  
>> the way our seed data is set up as well:
>>
>> Volume 1, page 45 -
>> Relationship Type name = Customer relationship
>> From Party = ACME Company
>> From Role = Customer
>> To Party = ABC Subsidiary
>> To Role = Internal Organization
>>
>> So I still think that the comment is the one that must be wrong.  
>> I'll take a look at the createPartyRelationship service and see if  
>> I find anything there.
>>
>> Si
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Si,
>>>
>>> I think that comment is correct and consistent with what is coded  
>>> in  the edit party relationships page in the party manager.
>>>
>>> The problem is most likely that the seed data for the agent is  
>>> wrong... I think this has actually been brought up before, so  
>>> I'll  fix it real quick...
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi.  I'm just trying to confirm the right way to set up party  
>>>> relationships in the system, because I think this comment in  
>>>> PartyTypeData.xml might be wrong:
>>>>
>>>> <!-- NOTE: The partyRelationshipName describes the TO party, ie  
>>>> A  is a customer of B, so A is the partyTo and B is the  
>>>> partyFrom -->
>>>>   The existing seed data for PartyRelationship, however, show
>>>> partyIdFrom = DemoCustAgent
>>>> partyIdTo = DemoCustCompany
>>>> partyRelationshipTypeId = AGENT
>>>>
>>>> when DemoCustAgent (partyIdFrom) is an AGENT of DemoCustCompany  
>>>> (partyIdTo)
>>>>
>>>> The seed data seems to be more intuitive anyway, but I just  
>>>> wanted  to confirm.  I can change the incorrect comment in the  
>>>> PartyTypeData.xml
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Si
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

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