Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?

Posted by David E Jones-2 on Jul 08, 2006; 3:01am
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/should-expired-inventoryitems-still-be-reservable-tp169466p169474.html


It would be cool to have a service (with a link somewhere in the UI) to delete an InventoryItem and re-allocate its reservations onto other InventoryItems.

-David


Si Chen wrote:

> Well, either a status or date would work.  Basically I have some old
> inventoryitems which I no longer want inventory reservations to be made
> against.  Not exactly a "business process" per se.  Maybe it's better if
> I just delete those inventory items and their OISGIR and
> inventory_item_detail that'd work better for me.  Yeah, maybe that's
> what I should do, now that I think about it.  ;)
>
> Si
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:26 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Having a separate set of statuses for the non-serialized inv items
>> would be best.
>>
>> Would this sort of status fit into the business process you are trying
>> to address, or is something like a date more natural?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Si Chen wrote:
>>> So should we create a new "INV_CANCELLED" or "INV_UNAVAIL"
>>> status which basically means that this item is no longer available?  
>>> And show it be of the INV_SERIALIZED_STTS
>>> type as well, or a new "INV_NONSERIAL_STTS"?  Which would you prefer
>>> semantically--to call them "cancelled" or "unavailable" (which is
>>> what they are, but then other status items may imply they are
>>> unavailable as well.)
>>> Si
>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not that I'm aware of, but it is an interesting idea... For a
>>>> serialized type inventory item you can set the status so the II is
>>>> not available for reservation.
>>>>
>>>> For non-serialized type items the status is not used, but I suppose
>>>> we could introduce something there...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>> Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off limits"
>>>>> for inventory reservations?  I had thought an expiration date might
>>>>> be what I'm looking for, but it didn't work the way I thought, and
>>>>> I'm not sure I have time to do all of this right now.
>>>>> Si
>>>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>>>>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with
>>>>>>>> InventoryItem.expireDate in the past are still being reserved
>>>>>>>> against order items.  Is this a bug?
>>>>>>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs will
>>>>>>> be in
>>>>>>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date but I
>>>>>>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the
>>>>>>> expire date
>>>>>>> has been reached.
>>>>>>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire
>>>>>>> date in
>>>>>>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global,
>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>> or product) to allow this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able to
>>>>>> sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options that
>>>>>> could be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
>>>>>> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
>>>>>> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
>>>>>> 4. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after
>>>>>> expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-assigned
>>>>>> to another Product that represents the expired inventory and is
>>>>>> sold in a special store or at a special discount.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it
>>>>>> impossible to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable
>>>>>> with a per-Product option (and like Christian said, perhaps with
>>>>>> per-Store or other defaults).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>