timesheet status

[hans_bakker]

Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a status. Is
there a reason for that?

It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is complete
by changing the status accordingly.

Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the timesheet.

Anybody any thoughts on this?

Regards,
Hans Bakker

--
http://Antwebsystems.com : OFBiz Quality support for competitive rates.

[rhodebump]

My experience (as a user of 2 different commercial timesheet systems) is that once the user submits the timesheet, it can not be edited.

Hopefully someone from the ofbiz community can give more info.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Bakker" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:56:25 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: timesheet status

Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a status. Is
there a reason for that?

It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is complete
by changing the status accordingly.

Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the timesheet.

Anybody any thoughts on this?

Regards,
Hans Bakker

--
http://Antwebsystems.com : OFBiz Quality support for competitive rates.

[David E Jones]

On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a  
> status. Is
> there a reason for that?
>
> It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is complete
> by changing the status accordingly.
>
> Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
> 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the  
> timesheet.
>
> Anybody any thoughts on this?

Yeah, a few thoughts:

1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great

2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant  
information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have  
statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment  
related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for  
Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes  
sense to manually change

3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to  
another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay  
period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active  
or not should be determined this way

4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to  
various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different  
invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by  
looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related  
to it

5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time  
entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that  
people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a  
daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,  
but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter  
hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for  
the Timesheet has passed

Any other statuses anyone can think of?

BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually  
frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using  
a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of  
things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each  
employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in  
general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible  
data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so  
we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of  
our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just  
progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other  
OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level  
automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to  
do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a  
certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early  
stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.

-David

[Phillip C. Rhodes]

David,
By autoposting, do you mean OFX integration to bank systems to import bank transactions into the system?  Or is autoposting something else?

Phillip
----- Original Message -----
From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:34:38 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: timesheet status


On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a  
> status. Is
> there a reason for that?
>
> It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is complete
> by changing the status accordingly.
>
> Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
> 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the  
> timesheet.
>
> Anybody any thoughts on this?

Yeah, a few thoughts:

1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great

2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant  
information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have  
statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment  
related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for  
Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes  
sense to manually change

3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to  
another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay  
period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active  
or not should be determined this way

4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to  
various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different  
invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by  
looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related  
to it

5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time  
entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that  
people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a  
daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,  
but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter  
hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for  
the Timesheet has passed

Any other statuses anyone can think of?

BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually  
frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using  
a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of  
things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each  
employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in  
general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible  
data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so  
we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of  
our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just  
progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other  
OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level  
automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to  
do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a  
certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early  
stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.

-David

[David E Jones]

By auto-posting I mean automatically posting GL entries for system  
events related to financially important artifacts like invoices,  
payments, inventory, and so on.

-David


On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Phillip C. Rhodes wrote:

> David,
> By autoposting, do you mean OFX integration to bank systems to  
> import bank transactions into the system?  Or is autoposting  
> something else?
>
> Phillip
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:34:38 PM (GMT-0500) America/
> New_York
> Subject: Re: timesheet status
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a
>> status. Is
>> there a reason for that?
>>
>> It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is  
>> complete
>> by changing the status accordingly.
>>
>> Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
>> 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the
>> timesheet.
>>
>> Anybody any thoughts on this?
>
> Yeah, a few thoughts:
>
> 1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great
>
> 2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant
> information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have
> statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment
> related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for
> Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes
> sense to manually change
>
> 3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to
> another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay
> period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active
> or not should be determined this way
>
> 4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to
> various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different
> invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by
> looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related
> to it
>
> 5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time
> entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that
> people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a
> daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,
> but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter
> hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for
> the Timesheet has passed
>
> Any other statuses anyone can think of?
>
> BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually
> frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using
> a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of
> things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each
> employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in
> general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible
> data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so
> we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of
> our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just
> progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other
> OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level
> automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to
> do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a
> certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early
> stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.
>
> -David
>
>

[rhodebump]

Sounds like fun stuff.
Is your autoposting design and implementation well under way?

I would advocate for a queue type of system.  One can publish a "invoice created" message onto the queue, and the other systems can be subscribers on the queue and process the message.

In my past life, I was a b2b  integration specialist and dealt with tibco/interconnect/etc/.

Phillip


----- Original Message -----
From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:01:06 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: timesheet status


By auto-posting I mean automatically posting GL entries for system  
events related to financially important artifacts like invoices,  
payments, inventory, and so on.

-David


On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Phillip C. Rhodes wrote:

> David,
> By autoposting, do you mean OFX integration to bank systems to  
> import bank transactions into the system?  Or is autoposting  
> something else?
>
> Phillip
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:34:38 PM (GMT-0500) America/
> New_York
> Subject: Re: timesheet status
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a
>> status. Is
>> there a reason for that?
>>
>> It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is  
>> complete
>> by changing the status accordingly.
>>
>> Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
>> 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the
>> timesheet.
>>
>> Anybody any thoughts on this?
>
> Yeah, a few thoughts:
>
> 1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great
>
> 2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant
> information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have
> statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment
> related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for
> Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes
> sense to manually change
>
> 3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to
> another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay
> period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active
> or not should be determined this way
>
> 4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to
> various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different
> invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by
> looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related
> to it
>
> 5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time
> entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that
> people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a
> daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,
> but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter
> hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for
> the Timesheet has passed
>
> Any other statuses anyone can think of?
>
> BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually
> frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using
> a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of
> things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each
> employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in
> general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible
> data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so
> we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of
> our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just
> progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other
> OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level
> automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to
> do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a
> certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early
> stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.
>
> -David
>
>

[SkipDever]

Philip

That's a great idea, (the queue part), but not how it's done now.  This queue thing is useful on many levels.  It provides a super way of synchronizing multiple data centers when one happens to go offline for a while.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:23 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: timesheet status



Sounds like fun stuff.
Is your autoposting design and implementation well under way?

I would advocate for a queue type of system.  One can publish a "invoice created" message onto the queue, and the other systems can be subscribers on the queue and process the message.

In my past life, I was a b2b  integration specialist and dealt with tibco/interconnect/etc/.

Phillip


----- Original Message -----
From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:01:06 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: timesheet status


By auto-posting I mean automatically posting GL entries for system  
events related to financially important artifacts like invoices,  
payments, inventory, and so on.

-David


On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Phillip C. Rhodes wrote:

> David,
> By autoposting, do you mean OFX integration to bank systems to  
> import bank transactions into the system?  Or is autoposting  
> something else?
>
> Phillip
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:34:38 PM (GMT-0500) America/
> New_York
> Subject: Re: timesheet status
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a
>> status. Is
>> there a reason for that?
>>
>> It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is  
>> complete
>> by changing the status accordingly.
>>
>> Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
>> 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the
>> timesheet.
>>
>> Anybody any thoughts on this?
>
> Yeah, a few thoughts:
>
> 1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great
>
> 2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant
> information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have
> statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment
> related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for
> Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes
> sense to manually change
>
> 3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to
> another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay
> period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active
> or not should be determined this way
>
> 4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to
> various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different
> invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by
> looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related
> to it
>
> 5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time
> entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that
> people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a
> daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,
> but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter
> hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for
> the Timesheet has passed
>
> Any other statuses anyone can think of?
>
> BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually
> frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using
> a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of
> things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each
> employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in
> general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible
> data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so
> we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of
> our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just
> progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other
> OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level
> automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to
> do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a
> certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early
> stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.
>
> -David
>
>

[David E Jones]

On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:

>
> Sounds like fun stuff.
> Is your autoposting design and implementation well under way?

The design has been done for years. An implementation is partially in  
OFBiz, but unfortunately the rest of the implementation based on my  
design efforts is now part of the financials component in the  
opentaps project, which is HPL licensed (not an opensource.org  
license, and more annoying than GPL even).

An official implementation in OFBiz itself is still in progress.

> I would advocate for a queue type of system.  One can publish a  
> "invoice created" message onto the queue, and the other systems can  
> be subscribers on the queue and process the message.

In OFBiz this is called a "persisted asynchronous service call".  
These postings services are (and will be) just implemented as ofbiz  
service engine services. The "trigger" for them is just a Service ECA  
rule attached to other ofbiz services which in effect are just  
business events. The actions (action as in Event-Condition-Action for  
ECA rule) are just services, and in the action part of the rules you  
can specify that a service be called sync or async, and if async can  
optionally be persisted.

> In my past life, I was a b2b  integration specialist and dealt with  
> tibco/interconnect/etc/.

You'll love the OFBiz Service Engine then... all sorts of fun  
messaging related stuff, though all in the form of service calls. We  
don't have a tibco integration or anything, but you can call a  
service via JMS, or use service groups to call multiple remote  
services and such.

-David

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:01:06 PM (GMT-0500) America/
> New_York
> Subject: Re: timesheet status
>
>
> By auto-posting I mean automatically posting GL entries for system
> events related to financially important artifacts like invoices,
> payments, inventory, and so on.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Phillip C. Rhodes wrote:
>
>> David,
>> By autoposting, do you mean OFX integration to bank systems to
>> import bank transactions into the system?  Or is autoposting
>> something else?
>>
>> Phillip
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:34:38 PM (GMT-0500) America/
>> New_York
>> Subject: Re: timesheet status
>>
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a
>>> status. Is
>>> there a reason for that?
>>>
>>> It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is
>>> complete
>>> by changing the status accordingly.
>>>
>>> Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
>>> 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the
>>> timesheet.
>>>
>>> Anybody any thoughts on this?
>>
>> Yeah, a few thoughts:
>>
>> 1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great
>>
>> 2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant
>> information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have
>> statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment
>> related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for
>> Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes
>> sense to manually change
>>
>> 3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to
>> another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay
>> period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active
>> or not should be determined this way
>>
>> 4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to
>> various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different
>> invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by
>> looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related
>> to it
>>
>> 5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time
>> entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that
>> people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a
>> daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,
>> but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter
>> hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for
>> the Timesheet has passed
>>
>> Any other statuses anyone can think of?
>>
>> BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually
>> frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using
>> a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of
>> things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each
>> employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in
>> general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible
>> data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so
>> we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of
>> our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just
>> progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other
>> OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level
>> automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to
>> do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a
>> certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early
>> stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
>

[hans_bakker]

Back to the subject of timesheets? :-)

Thanks David for you extensive answer. I agree with you that we should
not enter status fields everywhere; a reference should block the data
from updating.

We do however need a flag where the user indicates that the timesheet is
complete and that it can be 'processed'. This processing should create a
link to the invoice, via workeffort if required, which should block the
timesheet-entry from update.

Perhaps we need later a report which will show the timesheet entries
which were not processed.......

I will propose the customer this solution.

Regards,
Hans


On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 14:34 -0600, David E Jones wrote:

> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
> > Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a  
> > status. Is
> > there a reason for that?
> >
> > It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is complete
> > by changing the status accordingly.
> >
> > Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
> > 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the  
> > timesheet.
> >
> > Anybody any thoughts on this?
>
> Yeah, a few thoughts:
>
> 1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great
>
> 2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant  
> information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have  
> statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment  
> related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for  
> Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes  
> sense to manually change
>
> 3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to  
> another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay  
> period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active  
> or not should be determined this way
>
> 4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to  
> various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different  
> invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by  
> looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related  
> to it
>
> 5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time  
> entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that  
> people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a  
> daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,  
> but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter  
> hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for  
> the Timesheet has passed
>
> Any other statuses anyone can think of?
>
> BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually  
> frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using  
> a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of  
> things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each  
> employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in  
> general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible  
> data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so  
> we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of  
> our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just  
> progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other  
> OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level  
> automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to  
> do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a  
> certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early  
> stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.
>
> -David
>

--
http://Antwebsystems.com : OFBiz Quality support for competitive rates.

[BJ Freeman]

there are some companies that require a timesheet to be entered within a
certain time period. if Not then there is no payment.
Please keep that in mind.

Hans Bakker sent the following on 10/10/2007 10:54 PM:

> Back to the subject of timesheets? :-)
>
> Thanks David for you extensive answer. I agree with you that we should
> not enter status fields everywhere; a reference should block the data
> from updating.
>
> We do however need a flag where the user indicates that the timesheet is
> complete and that it can be 'processed'. This processing should create a
> link to the invoice, via workeffort if required, which should block the
> timesheet-entry from update.
>
> Perhaps we need later a report which will show the timesheet entries
> which were not processed.......
>
> I will propose the customer this solution.
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 14:34 -0600, David E Jones wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>> Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a  
>>> status. Is
>>> there a reason for that?
>>>
>>> It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is complete
>>> by changing the status accordingly.
>>>
>>> Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
>>> 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the  
>>> timesheet.
>>>
>>> Anybody any thoughts on this?
>> Yeah, a few thoughts:
>>
>> 1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great
>>
>> 2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant  
>> information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have  
>> statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment  
>> related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for  
>> Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes  
>> sense to manually change
>>
>> 3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to  
>> another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay  
>> period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active  
>> or not should be determined this way
>>
>> 4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to  
>> various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different  
>> invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by  
>> looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related  
>> to it
>>
>> 5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time  
>> entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that  
>> people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a  
>> daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,  
>> but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter  
>> hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for  
>> the Timesheet has passed
>>
>> Any other statuses anyone can think of?
>>
>> BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually  
>> frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using  
>> a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of  
>> things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each  
>> employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in  
>> general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible  
>> data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so  
>> we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of  
>> our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just  
>> progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other  
>> OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level  
>> automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to  
>> do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a  
>> certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early  
>> stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.
>>
>> -David
>>

[rajsaini]

May be we think on the line of Event Driven Architecture (EDA) based
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). Apache service mix offer these capabilities.

Thanks,

Raj
skip@theDevers wrote:

> Philip
>
> That's a great idea, (the queue part), but not how it's done now.  This queue thing is useful on many levels.  It provides a super way of synchronizing multiple data centers when one happens to go offline for a while.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:23 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: timesheet status
>
>
>
> Sounds like fun stuff.
> Is your autoposting design and implementation well under way?
>
> I would advocate for a queue type of system.  One can publish a "invoice created" message onto the queue, and the other systems can be subscribers on the queue and process the message.
>
> In my past life, I was a b2b  integration specialist and dealt with tibco/interconnect/etc/.
>
> Phillip
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:01:06 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
> Subject: Re: timesheet status
>
>
> By auto-posting I mean automatically posting GL entries for system  
> events related to financially important artifacts like invoices,  
> payments, inventory, and so on.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Phillip C. Rhodes wrote:
>
>  
>> David,
>> By autoposting, do you mean OFX integration to bank systems to  
>> import bank transactions into the system?  Or is autoposting  
>> something else?
>>
>> Phillip
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:34:38 PM (GMT-0500) America/
>> New_York
>> Subject: Re: timesheet status
>>
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> Currently the timesheet in workeffort does not seem to have a
>>> status. Is
>>> there a reason for that?
>>>
>>> It would be nice if a user can indicate that his timesheet is  
>>> complete
>>> by changing the status accordingly.
>>>
>>> Then when the timesheet is invoiced the status could be changed to
>>> 'invoiced' which would prevent the user further changing the
>>> timesheet.
>>>
>>> Anybody any thoughts on this?
>>>      
>> Yeah, a few thoughts:
>>
>> 1. helping the user know what is up with their stuff is great
>>
>> 2. the danger with statuses is that they can be redundant
>> information, and we want to avoid that (for example, we do not have
>> statuses on the OrderHeader for shipment and invoice and payment
>> related things, those are attached to their respective entities); for
>> Timesheets I'm not sure if they really have a status that it makes
>> sense to manually change
>>
>> 3. a Timesheet is meant to contain time entries from one date/time to
>> another date/time, for 2 weeks perhaps (to correspond with their pay
>> period or something), so determining whether the time sheet is active
>> or not should be determined this way
>>
>> 4. the billing of the related TimeEntry records may be attached to
>> various different WorkEfforts and could be billed on different
>> invoices for the same Timesheet, so that should be determined by
>> looking at all invoices related to the various time entries related
>> to it
>>
>> 5. it might be nice to have a manual status to denote that all time
>> entries for the period have been entered, because it is normal that
>> people enter time either all at once based on a paper form, or on a
>> daily/hourly basis if they enter time right after each block of work,
>> but even in the second scenario sometimes people forget to enter
>> hours right away and hours could come in after the time period for
>> the Timesheet has passed
>>
>> Any other statuses anyone can think of?
>>
>> BTW, it's great to see work going on in this area... I am continually
>> frustrated with project management software. We're a month into using
>> a commercial product right now and it's okay, but there are lots of
>> things we can't do, it's expensive as we have to pay for each
>> employee or client agent we want to have access the system, and in
>> general it would be great to have something based on a more flexible
>> data model (and one that we're familiar with and can manipulate!) so
>> we're definitely moving toward creating a OFBiz-based system. All of
>> our efforts are going back into OFBiz, but of course it is just
>> progressing as we have unused resources (and competing with other
>> OFBiz enhancement efforts we are working on like a good service-level
>> automated test suite, and fleshing out the accounting component so to
>> do the auto-posting and reporting so that one does not have to use a
>> certain HPL/commercial licensed product to do that). For our early
>> stuff, see the workeffort and projectmgr components.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>    
>
>
>
>
>