You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by "Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2007/07/10 11:15:04 UTC
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511360 ]
Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1134:
------------------------------------------
Iain,
in rev. 554878 I've modified the requirement creation services to always fill the facilityId with the facility for which the requirement is intended for.
This should solve your problem.
> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-1134
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: order
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Reporter: Iain Fogg
> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
> Fix For: SVN trunk
>
>
> Prelude:
> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
> Assumption:
> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
> Scenario:
> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: [jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
Yes,
but if you are using one warehouse (e.g. "WebStoreWarehouse") the
statement is very simple:
update REQUIREMENT set FACILITY_ID = 'WebStoreWarehouse' where
FACILITY_ID is null and REQUIREMENT_TYPE_ID = 'PRODUCT_REQUIREMENT'
You can eneter the sql command in the Webtools-->Entity SQL Processor
(after a backup!)
Jacopo
iain wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> This seems pretty reasonable. I'm currently testing r552815. I'll have
> to knock up a query to set the facilityId for those existing
> requirements with a null value (I need to handle the migration for a
> production DB).
>
> Cheers, Iain
>
> Will
> Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA) wrote:
>> [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511360
>> ]
>> Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1134:
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> Iain,
>>
>> in rev. 554878 I've modified the requirement creation services to
>> always fill the facilityId with the facility for which the requirement
>> is intended for.
>> This should solve your problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Key: OFBIZ-1134
>>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
>>> Project: OFBiz
>>> Issue Type: Bug
>>> Components: order
>>> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
>>> Reporter: Iain Fogg
>>> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
>>> Fix For: SVN trunk
>>>
>>>
>>> Prelude:
>>> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition.
>>> In
>>> applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml
>>> to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing
>>> <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
>>> Assumption:
>>> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a
>>> value for facilityId.
>>> Scenario:
>>> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and
>>> select "Approved Product Requirements".
>>> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays
>>> all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
>>> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a
>>> facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the
>>> lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId,
>>> do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than
>>> supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
>>> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get
>>> the full list of approved requirements.
>>> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty
>>> facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing
>>> something else when a Supplier is selected.
>>> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a
>>> production database that include requirements that may or may not
>>> have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots
>>> of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being
>>> generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if
>>> that is important but thought I'd mention it).
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
Posted by iain <ia...@westnet.com.au>.
Hi Jacopo,
This seems pretty reasonable. I'm currently testing r552815. I'll have
to knock up a query to set the facilityId for those existing
requirements with a null value (I need to handle the migration for a
production DB).
Cheers, Iain
Will
Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA) wrote:
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511360 ]
>
> Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1134:
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Iain,
>
> in rev. 554878 I've modified the requirement creation services to always fill the facilityId with the facility for which the requirement is intended for.
> This should solve your problem.
>
>
>
>> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Key: OFBIZ-1134
>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
>> Project: OFBiz
>> Issue Type: Bug
>> Components: order
>> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
>> Reporter: Iain Fogg
>> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
>> Fix For: SVN trunk
>>
>>
>> Prelude:
>> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
>> Assumption:
>> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
>> Scenario:
>> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
>> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
>> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
>> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
>> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
>> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
>>
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/891 - Release Date: 8/07/2007 6:32 PM