You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com> on 2007/03/05 08:04:38 UTC
Rev 499029 calcops field required?
In Rev. 499029 the simple-methods.xsd was changed to make field-name a
required attribute of <calcops/>. Was this done on purpose?
There are quite a few uses that only use the following definition style
<calcop operator="add">
<calcop field-name="myField1" operator="get"/>
<calcop field-name="myField2" operator="get"/>
</calcop>
Re: Rev 499029 calcops field required?
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
David,
Yes, I surely lost myself somewhere (comparing revisions perhaps) :
field-to-result and create-object are both correct.
BTW did you have a chance to look at the last patch in OFBIZ-571 (
simple-methods.xsd.patch (73 kb)) ?
Jacques
I just peeked at this... the calcop -> field-name really should be
optional, and was incorrect in both the xsd file and the quick ref
book. BTW, in general the quick ref book is based on the xsd file and
never the other way around. I just committed the change to the xsd file.
Looking at field-to-result and create-object, I think both of those
are correct in both the xsd file and the quick ref book.
-David
On Mar 5, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Chris, Scoot,
>
> I'm not sure what to think because from the "OFBiz Quick Reference
> Book"
> p.6, field-name is required for calculate.
> On the other hand, it's right that in rev. 4900457 (last pre doc mods,
> 1st being 491819) it was not set as required in xsd.
> I'm sure that it's a paste that made it like that. And I'm pretty sure
> it was not intentionnal because there are two others that are false
> for
> sure : result-to-field and create-object.
>
> I will wait David's advice too change all.of them
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Message d'origine -----
> De : "Scott Gray" <le...@gmail.com>
> À : <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> Envoyé : lundi 5 mars 2007 08:45
> Objet : Re: Rev 499029 calcops field required?
>
>
>> Looks like an accident during the documentation commits.
>> - Scott
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>> In Rev. 499029 the simple-methods.xsd was changed to make field-name
> a
>>> required attribute of <calcops/>. Was this done on purpose?
>>> There are quite a few uses that only use the following definition
> style
>>> <calcop operator="add">
>>> <calcop field-name="myField1" operator="get"/>
>>> <calcop field-name="myField2" operator="get"/>
>>> </calcop>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Rev 499029 calcops field required?
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I just peeked at this... the calcop -> field-name really should be
optional, and was incorrect in both the xsd file and the quick ref
book. BTW, in general the quick ref book is based on the xsd file and
never the other way around. I just committed the change to the xsd file.
Looking at field-to-result and create-object, I think both of those
are correct in both the xsd file and the quick ref book.
-David
On Mar 5, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Chris, Scoot,
>
> I'm not sure what to think because from the "OFBiz Quick Reference
> Book"
> p.6, field-name is required for calculate.
> On the other hand, it's right that in rev. 4900457 (last pre doc mods,
> 1st being 491819) it was not set as required in xsd.
> I'm sure that it's a paste that made it like that. And I'm pretty sure
> it was not intentionnal because there are two others that are false
> for
> sure : result-to-field and create-object.
>
> I will wait David's advice too change all.of them
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Message d'origine -----
> De : "Scott Gray" <le...@gmail.com>
> À : <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
> Envoyé : lundi 5 mars 2007 08:45
> Objet : Re: Rev 499029 calcops field required?
>
>
>> Looks like an accident during the documentation commits.
>> - Scott
>>
>> Chris Howe wrote:
>>> In Rev. 499029 the simple-methods.xsd was changed to make field-name
> a
>>> required attribute of <calcops/>. Was this done on purpose?
>>> There are quite a few uses that only use the following definition
> style
>>> <calcop operator="add">
>>> <calcop field-name="myField1" operator="get"/>
>>> <calcop field-name="myField2" operator="get"/>
>>> </calcop>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Rev 499029 calcops field required?
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Chris, Scoot,
I'm not sure what to think because from the "OFBiz Quick Reference Book"
p.6, field-name is required for calculate.
On the other hand, it's right that in rev. 4900457 (last pre doc mods,
1st being 491819) it was not set as required in xsd.
I'm sure that it's a paste that made it like that. And I'm pretty sure
it was not intentionnal because there are two others that are false for
sure : result-to-field and create-object.
I will wait David's advice too change all.of them
Thanks
Jacques
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Scott Gray" <le...@gmail.com>
À : <de...@ofbiz.apache.org>
Envoyé : lundi 5 mars 2007 08:45
Objet : Re: Rev 499029 calcops field required?
> Looks like an accident during the documentation commits.
> - Scott
>
> Chris Howe wrote:
> > In Rev. 499029 the simple-methods.xsd was changed to make field-name
a
> > required attribute of <calcops/>. Was this done on purpose?
> > There are quite a few uses that only use the following definition
style
> > <calcop operator="add">
> > <calcop field-name="myField1" operator="get"/>
> > <calcop field-name="myField2" operator="get"/>
> > </calcop>
> >
> >
Re: Rev 499029 calcops field required?
Posted by Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>.
Looks like an accident during the documentation commits.
- Scott
Chris Howe wrote:
> In Rev. 499029 the simple-methods.xsd was changed to make field-name a
> required attribute of <calcops/>. Was this done on purpose?
> There are quite a few uses that only use the following definition style
> <calcop operator="add">
> <calcop field-name="myField1" operator="get"/>
> <calcop field-name="myField2" operator="get"/>
> </calcop>
>
>