You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Scott Gray <sc...@hotwaxsystems.com> on 2018/03/26 02:39:04 UTC
Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6882) Extend the PostalAddress entity
with additional elements
Similar to the discussion around design review for Tomcat SSO, here is
another example below, admittedly it is 2 years old now but I'm only just
seeing it because I'm now using a newer version for work.
IMO it's absolutely critical that any non-minor framework or data model
changes are discussed in the dev mailing list. It's also absolutely
critical that issues raised in review are discussed rather than ignored,
nothing should ever be committed when the only reviews are doubtful ones.
Regards
Scott
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Scott Gray (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org>
Date: 26 March 2018 at 02:20
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6882) Extend the PostalAddress entity
with additional elements
To: notifications@ofbiz.apache.org
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6882?page=
com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16413283#comment-16413283 ]
Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-6882:
-----------------------------------
I'm surprised you went with houseNumber [~jacques.le.roux]
What if the address is for an office or a warehouse? Even with review and
doubts from others on some of these fields you still went ahead without
question or even engaging in the discussion. The houseNumber name is poorly
chosen, and Pierre provided no justification for the municipalityGeoId
field.
This wasn't good committer behavior.
> Extend the PostalAddress entity with additional elements
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-6882
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6882
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: party
> Affects Versions: Trunk
> Reporter: Pierre Smits
> Assignee: Pierre Smits
> Priority: Major
> Labels: 3rdParty, Shipment, integration
> Fix For: 16.11.01
>
> Attachments: OFBIZ-6882-party-PostalAddress.patch
>
>
> Various modern day 3rd party delivery solutions (e.g. PostNL in The
Netherlands) require that elements are delivered separately, so that
addresses can be checked more easily.
> Current definition of the PostalAddress doesn't have separation of:
> * street name
> * house number
> * house number addition or extension
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
Re: Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6882) Extend the PostalAddress
entity with additional elements
Posted by Michael Brohl <mi...@ecomify.de>.
We are using the new versions for some time now and found a lot of
similar issues. Several of them were introduced in the same way by
committing code which is badly designed or simply wrong.
I agree that we need another approach to prevent these changes slipping
into the codebase without proper review. And it should be a no-go to
commit changes or new functionality when there are already concerns by
others.
Regards,
Michael
Am 26.03.18 um 04:39 schrieb Scott Gray:
> Similar to the discussion around design review for Tomcat SSO, here is
> another example below, admittedly it is 2 years old now but I'm only just
> seeing it because I'm now using a newer version for work.
>
> IMO it's absolutely critical that any non-minor framework or data model
> changes are discussed in the dev mailing list. It's also absolutely
> critical that issues raised in review are discussed rather than ignored,
> nothing should ever be committed when the only reviews are doubtful ones.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Scott Gray (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org>
> Date: 26 March 2018 at 02:20
> Subject: [jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6882) Extend the PostalAddress entity
> with additional elements
> To: notifications@ofbiz.apache.org
>
>
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6882?page=
> com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16413283#comment-16413283 ]
>
> Scott Gray commented on OFBIZ-6882:
> -----------------------------------
>
> I'm surprised you went with houseNumber [~jacques.le.roux]
>
> What if the address is for an office or a warehouse? Even with review and
> doubts from others on some of these fields you still went ahead without
> question or even engaging in the discussion. The houseNumber name is poorly
> chosen, and Pierre provided no justification for the municipalityGeoId
> field.
>
> This wasn't good committer behavior.
>
>> Extend the PostalAddress entity with additional elements
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Key: OFBIZ-6882
>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6882
>> Project: OFBiz
>> Issue Type: Improvement
>> Components: party
>> Affects Versions: Trunk
>> Reporter: Pierre Smits
>> Assignee: Pierre Smits
>> Priority: Major
>> Labels: 3rdParty, Shipment, integration
>> Fix For: 16.11.01
>>
>> Attachments: OFBIZ-6882-party-PostalAddress.patch
>>
>>
>> Various modern day 3rd party delivery solutions (e.g. PostNL in The
> Netherlands) require that elements are delivered separately, so that
> addresses can be checked more easily.
>> Current definition of the PostalAddress doesn't have separation of:
>> * street name
>> * house number
>> * house number addition or extension
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> (v7.6.3#76005)
>