You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com> on 2006/12/01 22:20:25 UTC
Re: Help with POS behaviour
Hey Iain, Ray -
How's this going? Have you figured this out, or do you need some help?
On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Iain Fogg wrote:
> Progress on the problem with POS incorrectly creditting the CASH
> account regardless of which payment type was used to process a
> customer refund...
>
> It seems processAmount in PaymentEvents.java behaves differently
> depending on whether you enter the amount to be refunded vs letting
> the system default to the value of the sale (refund). In the former
> case, the defect I have described does not exist (ie, the correct
> GL account gets updated on a refund). In the latter case, the
> behaviour defaults to posting transactions to the CASH-related
> accounts. This happens because processAmount treats a negative sale
> total as an exception when you don't provide an explicit value.
> Whether or not this is the right thing is debatable, but what is
> not debatable is that a negative value should be treated the same
> regardless whether it is supplied or generated. Therefore, to get
> me past one of my hurdles I simply made processAmount treat
> negative values as valid values.
>
> I don't have access to my local svn on this system so I've included
> the relevant change below...
>
> Looking closer at the POS handling of refunds, there is another
> painful deficiency (which would be solved by Ray's suggestion to re-
> implement using the Returns services - POS does not trigger the
> appropriate services to increase inventory when a product is
> returned/refunded.
>
> private static double processAmount(PosTransaction trans,
> PosScreen pos, String amountStr) throws GeneralException {
> Input input = pos.getInput();
>
> if (input.isFunctionSet("TOTAL")) {
> String amtStr = amountStr != null ? amountStr :
> input.value();
> double amount;
> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(amtStr)) {
> try {
> amount = Double.parseDouble(amtStr);
> } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
> Debug.logError("Invalid number for amount : " +
> amtStr, module);
> pos.getOutput().print("Invalid Amount!");
> input.clearInput();
> throw new GeneralException();
> }
> amount = amount / 100; // convert to decimal
> Debug.log("Set amount / 100 : " + amount, module);
> } else {
> Debug.log("Amount is empty; assumption is full
> amount : " + trans.getTotalDue(), module);
> amount = trans.getTotalDue();
> // COMMENT OUT THE FOLLOWING 3 LINES
> //if (amount <= 0) {
> // throw new GeneralException();
> //}
> // END OF COMMENT SECTION
> }
> return amount;
> } else {
> Debug.log("TOTAL function NOT set", module);
> throw new GeneralException();
> }
> }
> }
>
> Iain Fogg wrote:
>> Ray, Jacques,
>>
>> I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor
>> the code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up
>> against a hard go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too
>> much to do in the time available. Based on my testing, POS seems
>> to handle most things for basic sales and returns well enough.
>> Specifically, it calculates the right $ values (including taxes),
>> updates inventory properly, and hooks into the accounting ECAs
>> with the following exceptions (there might be more but I don't
>> know about them):
>>
>> 1. Refunds don't credit the correct default GL account (ie, the
>> issue that prompted this request for help)
>> 2. The INVENTORY and COGS accounts don't get updated. A while back
>> Si said that this was because the INVENT/COGS updates were
>> triggered off an ItemIssuance and presumably POS isn't doing this.
>> However, I looked through some trace last night and there is
>> definitely a call to one of the ItemIssuance services so I'm not
>> sure what's going on. I'll try to look at this ASAP...
>>
>> Thanks for the input on this, and if you've any other pearls of
>> wisdom to share, feel free to continue the thread :-)
>>
>> Cheers, Iain
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> Iain, Ray,
>>>
>>> Yes, I think that Ray is in the truth even if I did look at it
>>> seriously... I will try tomorrow...
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Ray Barlow" <ra...@makeyour-point.com>
>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any
>>>> support
>>>> for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work
>>>> around
>>>> rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I
>>>> would not
>>>> rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a
>>>> negative quantity and price in the order.
>>>>
>>>> The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really
>>>> exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was
>>>> originally
>>>> done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually
>>>> recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that
>>>> have
>>>> hopefully been exposed during the order manager development.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Iain,
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the
>>>>> moment) verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in
>>>>>
>>> PosTransaction.java.
>>>
>>>>> For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look
>>>>> ASAP...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Fogg"
>>>>> <ia...@westnet.com.au>
>>>>> To: <of...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM
>>>>> Subject: Help with POS behaviour
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you
>>>>>> select CASH,
>>>>>> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context,
>>>>>> "payment" is
>>>>>> actually a refund).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong
>>>>>> account - CASH
>>>>>> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for
>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD
>>>>>> SUPPLIER
>>>>>> for a CREDIT CARD refund).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to
>>>>>> CASH in POS,
>>>>>> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further
>>>>>> downstream that
>>>>>> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled
>>>>>> as a cash
>>>>>> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at
>>>>>> straws :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose
>>>>>> debugging in POS
>>>>>> - setting the global verbose flag in
>>>>>> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the
>>>>>> trick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release
>>>>>> Date: 28/11/2006
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date:
> 29/11/2006
Best Regards,
Si
sichen@opensourcestrategies.com
Re: Help with POS behaviour
Posted by Iain Fogg <ia...@westnet.com.au>.
Si,
In the long term, POS will have to be refactored to use the Return
services to do this correctly. In the short-term, the fix described
below works (at least better than not having the fix). At the very
least, negative amounts in POS are now treated consistently. At best,
returns/refunds almost work well enough to say you could live with the
current implementation for now. The only problem I found was that an
inventory item gets created for the returned item, but the unitPrice
field was set to 0.0 instead of the (a) supplier's lastPrice.
I'll have another look at returns using the Order Manager, but I think
the last time I did that there were problems with handling off-line
payments.
Cheers, Iain
Si Chen wrote:
> Hey Iain, Ray -
>
> How's this going? Have you figured this out, or do you need some help?
>
> On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Iain Fogg wrote:
>
>> Progress on the problem with POS incorrectly creditting the CASH
>> account regardless of which payment type was used to process a
>> customer refund...
>>
>> It seems processAmount in PaymentEvents.java behaves differently
>> depending on whether you enter the amount to be refunded vs letting
>> the system default to the value of the sale (refund). In the former
>> case, the defect I have described does not exist (ie, the correct GL
>> account gets updated on a refund). In the latter case, the behaviour
>> defaults to posting transactions to the CASH-related accounts. This
>> happens because processAmount treats a negative sale total as an
>> exception when you don't provide an explicit value. Whether or not
>> this is the right thing is debatable, but what is not debatable is
>> that a negative value should be treated the same regardless whether
>> it is supplied or generated. Therefore, to get me past one of my
>> hurdles I simply made processAmount treat negative values as valid
>> values.
>>
>> I don't have access to my local svn on this system so I've included
>> the relevant change below...
>>
>> Looking closer at the POS handling of refunds, there is another
>> painful deficiency (which would be solved by Ray's suggestion to
>> re-implement using the Returns services - POS does not trigger the
>> appropriate services to increase inventory when a product is
>> returned/refunded.
>>
>> private static double processAmount(PosTransaction trans,
>> PosScreen pos, String amountStr) throws GeneralException {
>> Input input = pos.getInput();
>>
>> if (input.isFunctionSet("TOTAL")) {
>> String amtStr = amountStr != null ? amountStr :
>> input.value();
>> double amount;
>> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(amtStr)) {
>> try {
>> amount = Double.parseDouble(amtStr);
>> } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
>> Debug.logError("Invalid number for amount : " +
>> amtStr, module);
>> pos.getOutput().print("Invalid Amount!");
>> input.clearInput();
>> throw new GeneralException();
>> }
>> amount = amount / 100; // convert to decimal
>> Debug.log("Set amount / 100 : " + amount, module);
>> } else {
>> Debug.log("Amount is empty; assumption is full amount
>> : " + trans.getTotalDue(), module);
>> amount = trans.getTotalDue();
>> // COMMENT OUT THE FOLLOWING 3 LINES
>> //if (amount <= 0) {
>> // throw new GeneralException();
>> //}
>> // END OF COMMENT SECTION
>> }
>> return amount;
>> } else {
>> Debug.log("TOTAL function NOT set", module);
>> throw new GeneralException();
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Iain Fogg wrote:
>>> Ray, Jacques,
>>>
>>> I'm not going to disagree about Ray's recommendation to refactor the
>>> code to use the Returns infrastructure, however, I'm up against a
>>> hard go-live deadline and I suspect that would be too much to do in
>>> the time available. Based on my testing, POS seems to handle most
>>> things for basic sales and returns well enough. Specifically, it
>>> calculates the right $ values (including taxes), updates inventory
>>> properly, and hooks into the accounting ECAs with the following
>>> exceptions (there might be more but I don't know about them):
>>>
>>> 1. Refunds don't credit the correct default GL account (ie, the
>>> issue that prompted this request for help)
>>> 2. The INVENTORY and COGS accounts don't get updated. A while back
>>> Si said that this was because the INVENT/COGS updates were triggered
>>> off an ItemIssuance and presumably POS isn't doing this. However, I
>>> looked through some trace last night and there is definitely a call
>>> to one of the ItemIssuance services so I'm not sure what's going on.
>>> I'll try to look at this ASAP...
>>>
>>> Thanks for the input on this, and if you've any other pearls of
>>> wisdom to share, feel free to continue the thread :-)
>>>
>>> Cheers, Iain
>>>
>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>> Iain, Ray,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think that Ray is in the truth even if I did look at it
>>>> seriously... I will try tomorrow...
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Ray Barlow" <ra...@makeyour-point.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Strictly speaking I don't think the POS system actually has any
>>>>> support
>>>>> for returns. The negative quantity "process" is really a work around
>>>>> rather than a planned feature for handling returns therefore I
>>>>> would not
>>>>> rely on any of its accounting and reporting impacts other than a
>>>>> negative quantity and price in the order.
>>>>>
>>>>> The returns process used in the order manager screens didn't really
>>>>> exist beyond concept I don't think when the POS system was originally
>>>>> done. In others words I suspect the correct thing to do is actually
>>>>> recode the POS screens to make use of the returns services that have
>>>>> hopefully been exposed during the order manager development.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Iain,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunatly POS is not using much (actually any for the moment)
>>>>>> verbose. Please see "trace" and "Debug." in
>>>>>>
>>>> PosTransaction.java.
>>>>
>>>>>> For the 1st point I have no quick answer. I will take a look ASAP...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iain Fogg"
>>>>>> <ia...@westnet.com.au>
>>>>>> To: <of...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:45 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Help with POS behaviour
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you process a customer return via the POS application, it always
>>>>>>> seems to think that the payment type is CASH, whether you select
>>>>>>> CASH,
>>>>>>> CHECK, or CREDIT on the payment screen. (In this context,
>>>>>>> "payment" is
>>>>>>> actually a refund).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consequently, the accounting ECAs are updating the wrong account
>>>>>>> - CASH
>>>>>>> IN REGISTER is credited instead of the default GL account for
>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>> "payment" method you select (eg, IN TRANSIT FROM CREDIT CARD
>>>>>>> SUPPLIER
>>>>>>> for a CREDIT CARD refund).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frankly, I can't see where the payment type is being set to CASH
>>>>>>> in POS,
>>>>>>> so I'm starting to suspect there may be an ECA further
>>>>>>> downstream that
>>>>>>> is assuming any negative amount (refund) needs to be handled as
>>>>>>> a cash
>>>>>>> transaction, but that's just because I'm starting to clutch at
>>>>>>> straws :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, can some kind soul tell me how to turn on verbose
>>>>>>> debugging in POS
>>>>>>> - setting the global verbose flag in
>>>>>>> framework/base/config/debug.properties doesn't seem to do the
>>>>>>> trick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tips/pointers appreciated, Iain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>>>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date:
>>>>>>> 28/11/2006
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.0/557 - Release Date:
>> 29/11/2006
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Si
> sichen@opensourcestrategies.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.3/562 - Release Date: 1/12/2006
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.3/562 - Release Date: 1/12/2006