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 2006/07/07 01:33:22 UTC
should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Hi.
Just noticed that if inventory items with InventoryItem.expireDate in
the past are still being reserved against order items. Is this a bug?
Si
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com>.
I think you're right, Jacopo. Reserve inventory routines should skip
items with QOH <= 0. What do you think, David?
With respect to the "cool service," I think we'd want to have some
way to make and adjustment inventory reservations manually down the
road. What David mentioned should definitely be a part of it.
Si
On Jul 9, 2006, at 8:04 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> This is a very interesting subject.
> In theory, in the life of an inventory item, its quantity on hand
> (qoh) can only decrease: the maximum qoh is the quantity of the
> inventory item when it is created (by an inventory receipt, a
> production run, or by a reservation if no inventory item for the
> given product exist in the warehouse); in its life, the atp
> quantity can decrease & increase many times (reservations are moved
> very quickly), while the qoh can only decrease (for item issuances
> for shipments).
> (The only remarkable exception is the manual inventory variance.)
>
> So, when the qoh goes to zero, the inventory item can be considered
> 'old' (or dead, and I think that this is a nice way to define an
> old inventory item): no other issuances for shipments will ever
> come from it.
> (However it's important to keep them for material tracking and
> history).
>
> In order to speed up the reservation routine (when there are many
> inventory items), we could exclude from it all the inventory items
> with qoh = 0.
> We could also hide for the facility->inventory item screen all the
> those ii.
>
> Ok, maybe I'm off topic, but I wanted to write this notes down
> because I think there is something metaphotically sad in this :-)
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
>> It would be cool to have a service (with a link somewhere in the
>> UI) to delete an InventoryItem and re-allocate its reservations
>> onto other InventoryItems.
>> -David
>> Si Chen wrote:
>>> Well, either a status or date would work. Basically I have some
>>> old inventoryitems which I no longer want inventory reservations
>>> to be made against. Not exactly a "business process" per se.
>>> Maybe it's better if I just delete those inventory items and
>>> their OISGIR and inventory_item_detail that'd work better for
>>> me. Yeah, maybe that's what I should do, now that I think about
>>> it. ;)
>>>
>>> Si
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:26 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having a separate set of statuses for the non-serialized inv
>>>> items would be best.
>>>>
>>>> Would this sort of status fit into the business process you are
>>>> trying to address, or is something like a date more natural?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>> So should we create a new "INV_CANCELLED" or "INV_UNAVAIL"
>>>>> status which basically means that this item is no longer
>>>>> available? And show it be of the INV_SERIALIZED_STTS
>>>>> type as well, or a new "INV_NONSERIAL_STTS"? Which would you
>>>>> prefer semantically--to call them "cancelled" or
>>>>> "unavailable" (which is what they are, but then other status
>>>>> items may imply they are unavailable as well.)
>>>>> Si
>>>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that I'm aware of, but it is an interesting idea... For a
>>>>>> serialized type inventory item you can set the status so the
>>>>>> II is not available for reservation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For non-serialized type items the status is not used, but I
>>>>>> suppose we could introduce something there...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>> Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off
>>>>>>> limits" for inventory reservations? I had thought an
>>>>>>> expiration date might be what I'm looking for, but it didn't
>>>>>>> work the way I thought, and I'm not sure I have time to do
>>>>>>> all of this right now.
>>>>>>> Si
>>>>>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with
>>>>>>>>>> InventoryItem.expireDate in the past are still being
>>>>>>>>>> reserved against order items. Is this a bug?
>>>>>>>>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or
>>>>>>>>> drugs will be in
>>>>>>>>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire
>>>>>>>>> date but I
>>>>>>>>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if
>>>>>>>>> the expire date
>>>>>>>>> has been reached.
>>>>>>>>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an
>>>>>>>>> expire date in
>>>>>>>>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option
>>>>>>>>> (global, store
>>>>>>>>> or product) to allow this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be
>>>>>>>> able to sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few
>>>>>>>> options that could be configured with an enum on the Product
>>>>>>>> entity:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
>>>>>>>> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
>>>>>>>> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
>>>>>>>> 4. ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after
>>>>>>>> expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-
>>>>>>>> assigned to another Product that represents the expired
>>>>>>>> inventory and is sold in a special store or at a special
>>>>>>>> discount.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it
>>>>>>>> impossible to sell expired inventory unless it is
>>>>>>>> configurable with a per-Product option (and like Christian
>>>>>>>> said, perhaps with per-Store or other defaults).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
This is a very interesting subject.
In theory, in the life of an inventory item, its quantity on hand (qoh)
can only decrease: the maximum qoh is the quantity of the inventory item
when it is created (by an inventory receipt, a production run, or by a
reservation if no inventory item for the given product exist in the
warehouse); in its life, the atp quantity can decrease & increase many
times (reservations are moved very quickly), while the qoh can only
decrease (for item issuances for shipments).
(The only remarkable exception is the manual inventory variance.)
So, when the qoh goes to zero, the inventory item can be considered
'old' (or dead, and I think that this is a nice way to define an old
inventory item): no other issuances for shipments will ever come from it.
(However it's important to keep them for material tracking and history).
In order to speed up the reservation routine (when there are many
inventory items), we could exclude from it all the inventory items with
qoh = 0.
We could also hide for the facility->inventory item screen all the those ii.
Ok, maybe I'm off topic, but I wanted to write this notes down because I
think there is something metaphotically sad in this :-)
Jacopo
David E. Jones wrote:
>
> It would be cool to have a service (with a link somewhere in the UI) to
> delete an InventoryItem and re-allocate its reservations onto other
> InventoryItems.
>
> -David
>
>
> Si Chen wrote:
>> Well, either a status or date would work. Basically I have some old
>> inventoryitems which I no longer want inventory reservations to be
>> made against. Not exactly a "business process" per se. Maybe it's
>> better if I just delete those inventory items and their OISGIR and
>> inventory_item_detail that'd work better for me. Yeah, maybe that's
>> what I should do, now that I think about it. ;)
>>
>> Si
>>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:26 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Having a separate set of statuses for the non-serialized inv items
>>> would be best.
>>>
>>> Would this sort of status fit into the business process you are
>>> trying to address, or is something like a date more natural?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>> So should we create a new "INV_CANCELLED" or "INV_UNAVAIL"
>>>> status which basically means that this item is no longer available?
>>>> And show it be of the INV_SERIALIZED_STTS
>>>> type as well, or a new "INV_NONSERIAL_STTS"? Which would you prefer
>>>> semantically--to call them "cancelled" or "unavailable" (which is
>>>> what they are, but then other status items may imply they are
>>>> unavailable as well.)
>>>> Si
>>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that I'm aware of, but it is an interesting idea... For a
>>>>> serialized type inventory item you can set the status so the II is
>>>>> not available for reservation.
>>>>>
>>>>> For non-serialized type items the status is not used, but I suppose
>>>>> we could introduce something there...
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>> Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off limits"
>>>>>> for inventory reservations? I had thought an expiration date
>>>>>> might be what I'm looking for, but it didn't work the way I
>>>>>> thought, and I'm not sure I have time to do all of this right now.
>>>>>> Si
>>>>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>>>>>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with
>>>>>>>>> InventoryItem.expireDate in the past are still being reserved
>>>>>>>>> against order items. Is this a bug?
>>>>>>>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs
>>>>>>>> will be in
>>>>>>>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date
>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the
>>>>>>>> expire date
>>>>>>>> has been reached.
>>>>>>>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire
>>>>>>>> date in
>>>>>>>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global,
>>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>>> or product) to allow this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able
>>>>>>> to sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options that
>>>>>>> could be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
>>>>>>> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
>>>>>>> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
>>>>>>> 4. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after
>>>>>>> expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-assigned
>>>>>>> to another Product that represents the expired inventory and is
>>>>>>> sold in a special store or at a special discount.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it
>>>>>>> impossible to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable
>>>>>>> with a per-Product option (and like Christian said, perhaps with
>>>>>>> per-Store or other defaults).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
It would be cool to have a service (with a link somewhere in the UI) to delete an InventoryItem and re-allocate its reservations onto other InventoryItems.
-David
Si Chen wrote:
> Well, either a status or date would work. Basically I have some old
> inventoryitems which I no longer want inventory reservations to be made
> against. Not exactly a "business process" per se. Maybe it's better if
> I just delete those inventory items and their OISGIR and
> inventory_item_detail that'd work better for me. Yeah, maybe that's
> what I should do, now that I think about it. ;)
>
> Si
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:26 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Having a separate set of statuses for the non-serialized inv items
>> would be best.
>>
>> Would this sort of status fit into the business process you are trying
>> to address, or is something like a date more natural?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Si Chen wrote:
>>> So should we create a new "INV_CANCELLED" or "INV_UNAVAIL"
>>> status which basically means that this item is no longer available?
>>> And show it be of the INV_SERIALIZED_STTS
>>> type as well, or a new "INV_NONSERIAL_STTS"? Which would you prefer
>>> semantically--to call them "cancelled" or "unavailable" (which is
>>> what they are, but then other status items may imply they are
>>> unavailable as well.)
>>> Si
>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not that I'm aware of, but it is an interesting idea... For a
>>>> serialized type inventory item you can set the status so the II is
>>>> not available for reservation.
>>>>
>>>> For non-serialized type items the status is not used, but I suppose
>>>> we could introduce something there...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>>> Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off limits"
>>>>> for inventory reservations? I had thought an expiration date might
>>>>> be what I'm looking for, but it didn't work the way I thought, and
>>>>> I'm not sure I have time to do all of this right now.
>>>>> Si
>>>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>>>>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with
>>>>>>>> InventoryItem.expireDate in the past are still being reserved
>>>>>>>> against order items. Is this a bug?
>>>>>>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs will
>>>>>>> be in
>>>>>>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date but I
>>>>>>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the
>>>>>>> expire date
>>>>>>> has been reached.
>>>>>>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire
>>>>>>> date in
>>>>>>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global,
>>>>>>> store
>>>>>>> or product) to allow this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able to
>>>>>> sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options that
>>>>>> could be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
>>>>>> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
>>>>>> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
>>>>>> 4. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after
>>>>>> expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-assigned
>>>>>> to another Product that represents the expired inventory and is
>>>>>> sold in a special store or at a special discount.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it
>>>>>> impossible to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable
>>>>>> with a per-Product option (and like Christian said, perhaps with
>>>>>> per-Store or other defaults).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com>.
Well, either a status or date would work. Basically I have some old
inventoryitems which I no longer want inventory reservations to be
made against. Not exactly a "business process" per se. Maybe it's
better if I just delete those inventory items and their OISGIR and
inventory_item_detail that'd work better for me. Yeah, maybe that's
what I should do, now that I think about it. ;)
Si
On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:26 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Having a separate set of statuses for the non-serialized inv items
> would be best.
>
> Would this sort of status fit into the business process you are
> trying to address, or is something like a date more natural?
>
> -David
>
>
> Si Chen wrote:
>> So should we create a new "INV_CANCELLED" or "INV_UNAVAIL"
>> status which basically means that this item is no longer
>> available? And show it be of the INV_SERIALIZED_STTS
>> type as well, or a new "INV_NONSERIAL_STTS"? Which would you
>> prefer semantically--to call them "cancelled" or
>> "unavailable" (which is what they are, but then other status items
>> may imply they are unavailable as well.)
>> Si
>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Not that I'm aware of, but it is an interesting idea... For a
>>> serialized type inventory item you can set the status so the II
>>> is not available for reservation.
>>>
>>> For non-serialized type items the status is not used, but I
>>> suppose we could introduce something there...
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> Si Chen wrote:
>>>> Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off limits"
>>>> for inventory reservations? I had thought an expiration date
>>>> might be what I'm looking for, but it didn't work the way I
>>>> thought, and I'm not sure I have time to do all of this right now.
>>>> Si
>>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>>>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with
>>>>>>> InventoryItem.expireDate in the past are still being reserved
>>>>>>> against order items. Is this a bug?
>>>>>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs
>>>>>> will be in
>>>>>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the
>>>>>> expire date
>>>>>> has been reached.
>>>>>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire
>>>>>> date in
>>>>>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option
>>>>>> (global, store
>>>>>> or product) to allow this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able
>>>>> to sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options
>>>>> that could be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
>>>>> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
>>>>> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
>>>>> 4. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after
>>>>> expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-
>>>>> assigned to another Product that represents the expired
>>>>> inventory and is sold in a special store or at a special discount.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it
>>>>> impossible to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable
>>>>> with a per-Product option (and like Christian said, perhaps
>>>>> with per-Store or other defaults).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
Having a separate set of statuses for the non-serialized inv items would be best.
Would this sort of status fit into the business process you are trying to address, or is something like a date more natural?
-David
Si Chen wrote:
> So should we create a new "INV_CANCELLED" or "INV_UNAVAIL"
> status which basically means that this item is no longer available? And
> show it be of the INV_SERIALIZED_STTS
> type as well, or a new "INV_NONSERIAL_STTS"? Which would you prefer
> semantically--to call them "cancelled" or "unavailable" (which is what
> they are, but then other status items may imply they are unavailable as
> well.)
>
> Si
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of, but it is an interesting idea... For a
>> serialized type inventory item you can set the status so the II is not
>> available for reservation.
>>
>> For non-serialized type items the status is not used, but I suppose we
>> could introduce something there...
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> Si Chen wrote:
>>> Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off limits" for
>>> inventory reservations? I had thought an expiration date might be
>>> what I'm looking for, but it didn't work the way I thought, and I'm
>>> not sure I have time to do all of this right now.
>>> Si
>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with InventoryItem.expireDate
>>>>>> in the past are still being reserved against order items. Is this
>>>>>> a bug?
>>>>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs will
>>>>> be in
>>>>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date but I
>>>>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the expire
>>>>> date
>>>>> has been reached.
>>>>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire date in
>>>>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global, store
>>>>> or product) to allow this.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able to
>>>> sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options that could
>>>> be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
>>>> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
>>>> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
>>>> 4. ...
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after
>>>> expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-assigned to
>>>> another Product that represents the expired inventory and is sold in
>>>> a special store or at a special discount.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it impossible
>>>> to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable with a
>>>> per-Product option (and like Christian said, perhaps with per-Store
>>>> or other defaults).
>>>>
>>>> -David
>
>
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com>.
So should we create a new "INV_CANCELLED" or "INV_UNAVAIL"
status which basically means that this item is no longer available?
And show it be of the INV_SERIALIZED_STTS
type as well, or a new "INV_NONSERIAL_STTS"? Which would you prefer
semantically--to call them "cancelled" or "unavailable" (which is
what they are, but then other status items may imply they are
unavailable as well.)
Si
On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>
> Not that I'm aware of, but it is an interesting idea... For a
> serialized type inventory item you can set the status so the II is
> not available for reservation.
>
> For non-serialized type items the status is not used, but I suppose
> we could introduce something there...
>
> -David
>
>
> Si Chen wrote:
>> Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off limits"
>> for inventory reservations? I had thought an expiration date
>> might be what I'm looking for, but it didn't work the way I
>> thought, and I'm not sure I have time to do all of this right now.
>> Si
>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with
>>>>> InventoryItem.expireDate in the past are still being reserved
>>>>> against order items. Is this a bug?
>>>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs
>>>> will be in
>>>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date
>>>> but I
>>>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the
>>>> expire date
>>>> has been reached.
>>>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire
>>>> date in
>>>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global,
>>>> store
>>>> or product) to allow this.
>>>
>>> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able
>>> to sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options that
>>> could be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
>>>
>>> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
>>> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
>>> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
>>> 4. ...
>>>
>>> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after
>>> expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-assigned
>>> to another Product that represents the expired inventory and is
>>> sold in a special store or at a special discount.
>>>
>>> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it
>>> impossible to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable
>>> with a per-Product option (and like Christian said, perhaps with
>>> per-Store or other defaults).
>>>
>>> -David
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
Not that I'm aware of, but it is an interesting idea... For a serialized type inventory item you can set the status so the II is not available for reservation.
For non-serialized type items the status is not used, but I suppose we could introduce something there...
-David
Si Chen wrote:
> Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off limits" for
> inventory reservations? I had thought an expiration date might be what
> I'm looking for, but it didn't work the way I thought, and I'm not sure
> I have time to do all of this right now.
>
> Si
>
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with InventoryItem.expireDate
>>>> in the past are still being reserved against order items. Is this a
>>>> bug?
>>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs will be in
>>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date but I
>>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the expire date
>>> has been reached.
>>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire date in
>>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global, store
>>> or product) to allow this.
>>
>> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able to
>> sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options that could
>> be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
>>
>> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
>> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
>> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
>> 4. ...
>>
>> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after expiration
>> is sufficient because the inventory can be re-assigned to another
>> Product that represents the expired inventory and is sold in a special
>> store or at a special discount.
>>
>> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it impossible
>> to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable with a per-Product
>> option (and like Christian said, perhaps with per-Store or other
>> defaults).
>>
>> -David
>
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com>.
Is there any other way to mark an inventory item as "off limits" for
inventory reservations? I had thought an expiration date might be
what I'm looking for, but it didn't work the way I thought, and I'm
not sure I have time to do all of this right now.
Si
On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>
> Christian Geisert wrote:
>> Si Chen schrieb:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Just noticed that if inventory items with
>>> InventoryItem.expireDate in the past are still being reserved
>>> against order items. Is this a bug?
>> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs will
>> be in
>> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date but I
>> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the
>> expire date
>> has been reached.
>> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire
>> date in
>> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global,
>> store
>> or product) to allow this.
>
> I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able to
> sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options that
> could be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
>
> 1. Ignore Expiration Date
> 2. Don't Sell After Expiration
> 3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
> 4. ...
>
> On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after
> expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-assigned
> to another Product that represents the expired inventory and is
> sold in a special store or at a special discount.
>
> Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it
> impossible to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable with
> a per-Product option (and like Christian said, perhaps with per-
> Store or other defaults).
>
> -David
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by "David E. Jones" <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
Christian Geisert wrote:
> Si Chen schrieb:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Just noticed that if inventory items with InventoryItem.expireDate in
>> the past are still being reserved against order items. Is this a bug?
>
> I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs will be in
> trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date but I
> could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the expire date
> has been reached.
> So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire date in
> the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global, store
> or product) to allow this.
I agree, for some products it may be important to still be able to sell it after expiration. Perhaps there are a few options that could be configured with an enum on the Product entity:
1. Ignore Expiration Date
2. Don't Sell After Expiration
3. Sell At A Discount After Expiration
4. ...
On the other hand, maybe a true/false for allow sale after expiration is sufficient because the inventory can be re-assigned to another Product that represents the expired inventory and is sold in a special store or at a special discount.
Either way, I'd say we shouldn't add a rule that makes it impossible to sell expired inventory unless it is configurable with a per-Product option (and like Christian said, perhaps with per-Store or other defaults).
-David
Re: should expired inventoryitems still be reservable?
Posted by Christian Geisert <ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Si Chen schrieb:
> Hi.
>
> Just noticed that if inventory items with InventoryItem.expireDate in
> the past are still being reserved against order items. Is this a bug?
I'd say yes. As an example companies producing food or drugs will be in
trouble if they are selling stuff with an exceeded expire date but I
could imagine there are companies who sell stuff even if the expire date
has been reached.
So I think the default should be that inventory with an expire date in
the past shouldn't get reserved but maybe add an option (global, store
or product) to allow this.
Or maybe display a warning "Inventory has expired"
--
Christian