Demo data Inconsistant PartyRelationship

[BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>]

https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org:8443/webtools/control/FindGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&find=true&VIEW_SIZE=50&VIEW_INDEX=0
some rows have 	partyIdFrom= Company
others have 	partyIdTo =Company

The Pattern in the data Model book is the subset is from and next layer
up is the To (vol i page 45).
So by this partyIdTo =Company would be correct.
In 2005 subject: right way to set up party relationship
 David stated this

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.

Re: Demo data Inconsistant PartyRelationship

[BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>]

Sorry that was Si chens comment to david
here is Davids
> David,
>
> I don't think much code needs to be changed.  I think the current code
checks for a rollup of partyIdFrom to partyIdTo, and that's all correct.
 Only the edit party relationship page and the descriptive name of
"GROUP_ROLLUP" need  to be modified.

I'll just say this one more time: much more than this has to be changed.
I've already listed a number of places and there are others that may
need to be changed. Finding and assuring they are all changed is not
easy and quite error-prone.

> The reason for doing is:
> 1.  To conform to the standard in the Data Model Resources Book

What exactly in the data model resource book implies this sort of order?

> 2.  I really think the other way is more intuitive.  GROUP_ROLLUP can
really go either way  in meaning, but CUSTOMER, AGENT, etc. has strong
implications.  At least I think it's more intuitive.  If you disagree,
then we're stuck at 50:50.  Maybe we should do a poll on the list?  :)

Perhaps it is more intuitive, perhaps not. Of course, in things like
this intuition might be somewhat dangerous. It hasn't been a problem in
the past except for cases where the definition was not looked into. Even
in the accounting extensions you setup the internal organization rollup
demo data just fine...

-David

BJ Freeman sent the following on 9/2/2011 6:48 PM:
> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org:8443/webtools/control/FindGeneric?entityName=PartyRelationship&find=true&VIEW_SIZE=50&VIEW_INDEX=0
> some rows have 	partyIdFrom= Company
> others have 	partyIdTo =Company
> 
> The Pattern in the data Model book is the subset is from and next layer
> up is the To (vol i page 45).
> So by this partyIdTo =Company would be correct.
> In 2005 subject: right way to set up party relationship
>  David stated this
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>