shipments made for out of stock items

[Dave Tenerowicz <dt...@salmonllc.com>]

It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock items in 
an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due to product 
store settings, not a code issue.
rev =  545314
check inventory=Y
reserve inventory=Y
require inventory=N

All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)

Thanks for any help.

-- 
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com

Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330

Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices

RE: Billing Accounts and payment applications WAS Re: shipments made for out of stock items

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Jacopo

Already got this fixed, but you won't like my solution so I havent offered
it back.

I am just now about to write a new A/R service the I WILL offer back.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:04 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Billing Accounts and payment applications WAS Re: shipments
made for out of stock items


Hi Skip,

Skip wrote:
> Dave
>
> This is a requirement for me too as well as EOQ purchasing, and I am sure
> for all the rest of my old customers that I approach after the current
> customer is mostly happy.  I have a couple more weeks of tweeking to do in
> sales order entry and billing accounts and then I'll be doing this.
>

about billing accounts: if I am not wrong one of the issues you've
discovered in their current implementation (recently refactored) is this
one:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1243

Hopefully I will work on it very soon...

Jacopo



> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Tenerowicz [mailto:dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:44 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
> Skip-
> Agree. I was not suggesting that a fix would be unconditional. Rather,
> something along the lines you suggest here- a conditional property that
> can be checked to determine whether or not stock should be checked
> before issuing. For this particular client this is an absolute
> requirement. In fact, this has been an client expectation / requirement
> for most of the ERP implementations I have done (most not with OFB).
>
>
> -Dave
>
> Skip wrote:
>> Dave
>>
>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks
> who
>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>
>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>
>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
> quick
>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
> existing
>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
bookkeeping
> /
>> automatic ordering.
>>
>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
counter
>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get
it
>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
> Fixing
>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>
>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>> reluctant to accept it.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>
>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>
>>
>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>
>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>
>>
>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>
>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>
>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>
>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>
>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>
>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Dave Tenerowicz
> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>
> Office: 303.493.6727
> Mobile 303.906.6116
> Fax 303.814.8330
>
> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
> For ERP Information:
>
http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
> es
>

Billing Accounts and payment applications WAS Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

Hi Skip,

Skip wrote:
> Dave
> 
> This is a requirement for me too as well as EOQ purchasing, and I am sure
> for all the rest of my old customers that I approach after the current
> customer is mostly happy.  I have a couple more weeks of tweeking to do in
> sales order entry and billing accounts and then I'll be doing this.
> 

about billing accounts: if I am not wrong one of the issues you've 
discovered in their current implementation (recently refactored) is this 
one:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1243

Hopefully I will work on it very soon...

Jacopo



> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Tenerowicz [mailto:dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:44 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> Skip-
> Agree. I was not suggesting that a fix would be unconditional. Rather,
> something along the lines you suggest here- a conditional property that
> can be checked to determine whether or not stock should be checked
> before issuing. For this particular client this is an absolute
> requirement. In fact, this has been an client expectation / requirement
> for most of the ERP implementations I have done (most not with OFB).
> 
> 
> -Dave
> 
> Skip wrote:
>> Dave
>>
>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks
> who
>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>
>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>
>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
> quick
>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
> existing
>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better bookkeeping
> /
>> automatic ordering.
>>
>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter
>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it
>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
> Fixing
>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>
>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>> reluctant to accept it.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>
>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>
>>
>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>
>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>
>>
>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>
>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>
>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>
>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>
>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>
>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> --
> Dave Tenerowicz
> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
> 
> Office: 303.493.6727
> Mobile 303.906.6116
> Fax 303.814.8330
> 
> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
> For ERP Information:
> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
> es
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

[Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Dave

This is a requirement for me too as well as EOQ purchasing, and I am sure
for all the rest of my old customers that I approach after the current
customer is mostly happy.  I have a couple more weeks of tweeking to do in
sales order entry and billing accounts and then I'll be doing this.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Tenerowicz [mailto:dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:44 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


Skip-
Agree. I was not suggesting that a fix would be unconditional. Rather,
something along the lines you suggest here- a conditional property that
can be checked to determine whether or not stock should be checked
before issuing. For this particular client this is an absolute
requirement. In fact, this has been an client expectation / requirement
for most of the ERP implementations I have done (most not with OFB).


-Dave

Skip wrote:
> Dave
>
> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks
who
> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>
> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>
> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
quick
> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
existing
> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better bookkeeping
/
> automatic ordering.
>
> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter
> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it
> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
Fixing
> the quickship will take care of it.
>
> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
> reluctant to accept it.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>
>
>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>
>
> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>
>
>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>
>
> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>
>
>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>
>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>
>
> It will most likely be rejected.
>
> -David
>
>
>
>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>
>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> --
>> Dave Tenerowicz
>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>
>> Office: 303.493.6727
>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com

Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330

Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
For ERP Information:
http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
es

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Dave Tenerowicz <dt...@salmonllc.com>]

Skip-
Agree. I was not suggesting that a fix would be unconditional. Rather, 
something along the lines you suggest here- a conditional property that 
can be checked to determine whether or not stock should be checked 
before issuing. For this particular client this is an absolute 
requirement. In fact, this has been an client expectation / requirement 
for most of the ERP implementations I have done (most not with OFB).


-Dave

Skip wrote:
> Dave
>
> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks who
> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>
> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>
> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for quick
> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the existing
> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better bookkeeping /
> automatic ordering.
>
> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter
> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it
> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.  Fixing
> the quickship will take care of it.
>
> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
> reluctant to accept it.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>
>   
>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>     
>
> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>
>   
>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>     
>
> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>
>   
>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>
>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>     
>
> It will most likely be rejected.
>
> -David
>
>
>   
>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>     
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>
>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>> --
>> Dave Tenerowicz
>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>
>> Office: 303.493.6727
>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com

Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330

Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Hmmm, well, now with our feet firmly back on the ground, I just got finished
with two patent lawsuits (others suing us).  The guys suing us had just
successfully shut down another competitor with a better product (even better
than ours I must admit) and this is even though the patent in question was
15 years old for something really vague and everyone does it (essentially
translating various incoming datastreams into a common format altough
slightly complicated by a mainframe connection).  We won our lawsuits, but
it cost us 7.5 million dollars which in the U.S. is uncollectable even
though these lawsuits were so farfetched and could just put us out of
business even though we won.

Worse, this was for technology we had abandoned years ago and developed (but
did not patent) before these guys were out of high school.

The idea of the patent is not to control others (unless your a certain
unnamed ex-Novell executive (SCO caugh-caugh)), it's to protect yourself
from these kinds of sharks.

Before you scoff, read this:

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/14468/red_hat_novell_linux_sued_on_
patent_claims

and note this:

"IP Inovations .... has no products ...that exists solely to license a
portfolio ... and pursue patent infringement claims against anyone it
"believes" is violating those patents.  (quotes are mine)

After 3 years of fighting these pirates, I wish I had taken the "angst and
trouble" to file the patent claim.  That would have cost $500 and 2 hours
instead of 7.5 million and months of depositions.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:17 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


I agree with BJ.

A lawyer friend here (very good lawyer too) also had the same idea that
patents make for good
control. I told him the exact same thing that BJ just mentioned. Patents
make for clear
concessions (for the patent holder).

But then, lawyers do make a living suing for patent infringements. Just that
for business folks,
it's too much angst and trouble to file a suit that doesn't translate to
constructive business
endeavor (like making new products, services).

It's about how fast we can move ahead, not about how much we can prevent
others from moving ahead.

Jonathon

skip@theDevers wrote:
> Sage advice all!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:47 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
> Learned a valuable lesson from my Granddad and dad
> we have a mfgr company that was special niche
> for years we had competitors that tried to get market share
> but we were the leader in the field.
> so when I went to work for them, I was very concerned about the patents.
> they said.
> patents only keep them from stopping us from making it.
> but our innovation is what keeps up in front.
> so from my perspective, holding on to rights only protects me from
> someone saying I don't have the right to do it.
> with apache I don't worry about that.
> and my innovation keeps me ahead.
> what I share here is something I did months ago, but just getting around
> to adding it to ofbiz
>
>
>
> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/24/2007 7:19 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> You're way to easy on your customers.  Giving us hard-axxxs a bad name.
I
>> always keep the rights to the code I write unless it's a salaried long
> term
>> job.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:44 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> the online service is fee based. sorry.
>> however what I am proposing here would be a big boone to us all
>> and that, after I get the supplier emails running, is my next task, if I
>> am allowed
>>
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:36 PM:
>>> Wanna share the code?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
>>> webstores.
>>> been doing it since 1998.
>>> see my other email.
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
>>>> BJ
>>>>
>>>> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the
>> mix
>>>> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe
>>> the
>>>> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more
>> complicated
>>>> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to
> order
>>> a
>>>> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
>>>>
>>>> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right
>> in
>>>> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
>>>> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I
>> knew
>>>> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and
> case
>>>> three where I didn't have a clue.
>>>>
>>>> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
>>>> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.
This
>>> has
>>>> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now
and
>>> is
>>>> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for
>>> changes.
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
>>>> here is the scenario.
>>>> one product
>>>> two suppliers
>>>> one used to refill local stock
>>>> one one to dropship.
>>>>
>>>> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
>>>> refills local stock.
>>>> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
>>>>
>>>> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
>>>> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to
the
>>>> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
>>>>
>>>> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
>>>> shipping date to customer
>>>> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back
>>> orders.
>>>> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
>>>> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service
that
>>>> would best suit the configuration for a client.
>>>>
>>>> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the
programming
>>>> of ofbiz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>>>>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>>>>
>>>>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>>>>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>>>>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as
would
>>>>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in
the
>>>>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>>>>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock
> (ie
>>>>> does the stock out).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the
consideration.
>>>>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>>>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and
delivery
>>>>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>>>>> BJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc
> for
>>>>>>> quick
>>>>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>>>>> counter
>>>>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>>>>> has to
>>>>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>>>>> get it
>>>>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for
him.
>>>>>>> Fixing
>>>>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a
user
>>>>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed,
it
>>>>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this
is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

skip@theDevers wrote:
> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
> captureBillingAccountPayment does not.
> 

Actually not only for you: in my opinion the service that we have 
deprecated during the refactoring are simply wrong because they were 
based on wrong assumptions on the meaning and logic of billing accounts.
As soon as the new stuff is consolidated we should remove them.

Jacopo

RE: captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Yeppers


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:08 AM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments


This seems one of the errors introduced with the last framework
improvements...

I'm sure that others will jump in and help to fix this. Are you running
the latest trunk revision?

Jacopo


skip@theDevers wrote:
> Jacopo
>
> Tried the create a store credit thing and got this error:
>
>
>
> The Following Errors Occurred:
>
> Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]
>
> Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
>
>
>
> when I clicked "Accept Return"
>
> What I did was:
>
> 1.  Click "Order" tab, then check "Completed" and click submit.
>
> 2.  Picked an existing completed order on DemoCustCust for one WG-1111
>
> 3.  Clicked "Create Return" button 2/3rds down  toward the right side.
>
> 4.  Selected "Store Credit" from the drop down list for the item and two
tax
> entries (0.00 each for the tax entries) then clicked "return selected
> items".
>
> 5.  Checked the "Select All" box and clicked "Return Items"
>
> 6.  Clicked the "Accept Return" button.
>
>
> Here is the relevant part of the stack trace:
>
> 2007-10-25 08:46:43,361 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [
> ModelService.java:484:ERROR] [ModelService.validate] :
> {createTrackingCodeOrderReturns} : (IN) Required test error:
> org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> 2007-10-25 08:46:43,371 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [
> ServiceDispatcher.java:355:ERROR]
> ---- exception
> report ----------------------------------------------------------
> Incoming context (in runSync : createTrackingCodeOrderReturns) does not
> match expected requirements
> Exception: org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException
> Message: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> ---- stack
> trace ---------------------------------------------------------------
> org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> org.ofbiz.service.ModelService.validate(ModelService.java:552)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 AM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>
>
> skip@theDevers wrote:
>> Jacopo
>>
>> Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my
second
>> question.  Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices.  The
> customer
>> pays for all 4 invoices.  Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends
> it
>> back for a credit.  The following week, he buys something else.  Is there
>> some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options?
>> Could the same logic be used?
>>
>
> Yes,
>
> the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong):
>
> 1) a customer return is created for 2 items
> 2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store
>   (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated
> to the customer
> 3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing
> account (that can be used during order entry)
> This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>>
>> Skip
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>>
>>
>> skip@theDevers wrote:
>>> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
>>> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
>>> captureBillingAccountPayment does not.
>>>
>>> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which
it
>>> the right thing to do in this case).
>>>
>>> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the
>>>
>>>
>>>             if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) {
>>>
>>> which for me is always empty and never gets executed.
>>>
>>> Can the author comment?  Is there some case where this will contain
>>> paymentApplications?
>>>
>>> Skip
>> Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated
>> to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$.
>> You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole
>> payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication
>> record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId.
>> Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click
>> on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the
>> captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the
>> PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found
>> --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true -->
>> a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice;
>> the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available'
>> amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther
>> invoice...
>> At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID.
>>
>> Does it make sense?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

This seems one of the errors introduced with the last framework 
improvements...

I'm sure that others will jump in and help to fix this. Are you running 
the latest trunk revision?

Jacopo


skip@theDevers wrote:
> Jacopo
> 
> Tried the create a store credit thing and got this error:
> 
> 
> 
> The Following Errors Occurred:
> 
> Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]
> 
> Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> 
> 
> 
> when I clicked "Accept Return"
> 
> What I did was:
> 
> 1.  Click "Order" tab, then check "Completed" and click submit.
> 
> 2.  Picked an existing completed order on DemoCustCust for one WG-1111
> 
> 3.  Clicked "Create Return" button 2/3rds down  toward the right side.
> 
> 4.  Selected "Store Credit" from the drop down list for the item and two tax
> entries (0.00 each for the tax entries) then clicked "return selected
> items".
> 
> 5.  Checked the "Select All" box and clicked "Return Items"
> 
> 6.  Clicked the "Accept Return" button.
> 
> 
> Here is the relevant part of the stack trace:
> 
> 2007-10-25 08:46:43,361 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [
> ModelService.java:484:ERROR] [ModelService.validate] :
> {createTrackingCodeOrderReturns} : (IN) Required test error:
> org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> 2007-10-25 08:46:43,371 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [
> ServiceDispatcher.java:355:ERROR]
> ---- exception
> report ----------------------------------------------------------
> Incoming context (in runSync : createTrackingCodeOrderReturns) does not
> match expected requirements
> Exception: org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException
> Message: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> ---- stack
> trace ---------------------------------------------------------------
> org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> org.ofbiz.service.ModelService.validate(ModelService.java:552)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 AM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
> 
> 
> skip@theDevers wrote:
>> Jacopo
>>
>> Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second
>> question.  Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices.  The
> customer
>> pays for all 4 invoices.  Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends
> it
>> back for a credit.  The following week, he buys something else.  Is there
>> some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options?
>> Could the same logic be used?
>>
> 
> Yes,
> 
> the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong):
> 
> 1) a customer return is created for 2 items
> 2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store
>   (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated
> to the customer
> 3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing
> account (that can be used during order entry)
> This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know.
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> 
>>
>> Skip
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>>
>>
>> skip@theDevers wrote:
>>> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
>>> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
>>> captureBillingAccountPayment does not.
>>>
>>> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it
>>> the right thing to do in this case).
>>>
>>> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the
>>>
>>>
>>>             if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) {
>>>
>>> which for me is always empty and never gets executed.
>>>
>>> Can the author comment?  Is there some case where this will contain
>>> paymentApplications?
>>>
>>> Skip
>> Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated
>> to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$.
>> You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole
>> payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication
>> record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId.
>> Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click
>> on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the
>> captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the
>> PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found
>> --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true -->
>> a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice;
>> the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available'
>> amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther
>> invoice...
>> At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID.
>>
>> Does it make sense?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
> 

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>]

Rev 586938 is what you need.


skip@theDevers wrote:

> Jacopo
> 
> Tried the create a store credit thing and got this error:
> 
> 
> 
> The Following Errors Occurred:
> 
> Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]
> 
> Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> 
> 
> 
> when I clicked "Accept Return"
> 
> What I did was:
> 
> 1.  Click "Order" tab, then check "Completed" and click submit.
> 
> 2.  Picked an existing completed order on DemoCustCust for one WG-1111
> 
> 3.  Clicked "Create Return" button 2/3rds down  toward the right side.
> 
> 4.  Selected "Store Credit" from the drop down list for the item and two tax
> entries (0.00 each for the tax entries) then clicked "return selected
> items".
> 
> 5.  Checked the "Select All" box and clicked "Return Items"
> 
> 6.  Clicked the "Accept Return" button.
> 
> 
> Here is the relevant part of the stack trace:
> 
> 2007-10-25 08:46:43,361 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [
> ModelService.java:484:ERROR] [ModelService.validate] :
> {createTrackingCodeOrderReturns} : (IN) Required test error:
> org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> 2007-10-25 08:46:43,371 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [
> ServiceDispatcher.java:355:ERROR]
> ---- exception
> report ----------------------------------------------------------
> Incoming context (in runSync : createTrackingCodeOrderReturns) does not
> match expected requirements
> Exception: org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException
> Message: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> ---- stack
> trace ---------------------------------------------------------------
> org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
> [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
> org.ofbiz.service.ModelService.validate(ModelService.java:552)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 AM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
> 
> 
> skip@theDevers wrote:
> 
>>Jacopo
>>
>>Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second
>>question.  Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices.  The
> 
> customer
> 
>>pays for all 4 invoices.  Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends
> 
> it
> 
>>back for a credit.  The following week, he buys something else.  Is there
>>some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options?
>>Could the same logic be used?
>>
> 
> 
> Yes,
> 
> the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong):
> 
> 1) a customer return is created for 2 items
> 2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store
>   (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated
> to the customer
> 3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing
> account (that can be used during order entry)
> This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know.
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>Skip
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM
>>To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>>
>>
>>skip@theDevers wrote:
>>
>>>I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
>>>captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
>>>captureBillingAccountPayment does not.
>>>
>>>However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it
>>>the right thing to do in this case).
>>>
>>>My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the
>>>
>>>
>>>            if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) {
>>>
>>>which for me is always empty and never gets executed.
>>>
>>>Can the author comment?  Is there some case where this will contain
>>>paymentApplications?
>>>
>>>Skip
>>
>>Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated
>>to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$.
>>You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole
>>payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication
>>record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId.
>>Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click
>>on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the
>>captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the
>>PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found
>>--> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true -->
>>a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice;
>>the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available'
>>amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther
>>invoice...
>>At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID.
>>
>>Does it make sense?
>>
>>Jacopo
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Jacopo

Tried the create a store credit thing and got this error:



The Following Errors Occurred:

Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]

Unknown parameter found: [createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]



when I clicked "Accept Return"

What I did was:

1.  Click "Order" tab, then check "Completed" and click submit.

2.  Picked an existing completed order on DemoCustCust for one WG-1111

3.  Clicked "Create Return" button 2/3rds down  toward the right side.

4.  Selected "Store Credit" from the drop down list for the item and two tax
entries (0.00 each for the tax entries) then clicked "return selected
items".

5.  Checked the "Select All" box and clicked "Return Items"

6.  Clicked the "Accept Return" button.


Here is the relevant part of the stack trace:

2007-10-25 08:46:43,361 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [
ModelService.java:484:ERROR] [ModelService.validate] :
{createTrackingCodeOrderReturns} : (IN) Required test error:
org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found:
[createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
[createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
2007-10-25 08:46:43,371 (http-0.0.0.0-8443-Processor2) [
ServiceDispatcher.java:355:ERROR]
---- exception
report ----------------------------------------------------------
Incoming context (in runSync : createTrackingCodeOrderReturns) does not
match expected requirements
Exception: org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException
Message: Unknown parameter found:
[createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
[createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
---- stack
trace ---------------------------------------------------------------
org.ofbiz.service.ServiceValidationException: Unknown parameter found:
[createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.hasPermission]Unknown parameter found:
[createTrackingCodeOrderReturns.responseMessage]
org.ofbiz.service.ModelService.validate(ModelService.java:552)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:54 AM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments


skip@theDevers wrote:
> Jacopo
>
> Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second
> question.  Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices.  The
customer
> pays for all 4 invoices.  Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends
it
> back for a credit.  The following week, he buys something else.  Is there
> some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options?
> Could the same logic be used?
>

Yes,

the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong):

1) a customer return is created for 2 items
2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store
  (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated
to the customer
3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing
account (that can be used during order entry)
This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know.

Jacopo


>
>
> Skip
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>
>
> skip@theDevers wrote:
>> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
>> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
>> captureBillingAccountPayment does not.
>>
>> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it
>> the right thing to do in this case).
>>
>> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the
>>
>>
>>             if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) {
>>
>> which for me is always empty and never gets executed.
>>
>> Can the author comment?  Is there some case where this will contain
>> paymentApplications?
>>
>> Skip
>
> Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated
> to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$.
> You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole
> payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication
> record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId.
> Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click
> on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the
> captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the
> PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found
> --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true -->
> a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice;
> the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available'
> amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther
> invoice...
> At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID.
>
> Does it make sense?
>
> Jacopo
>
>

RE: captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

No worries dude, you can still have it when I put it in Jira.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:31 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments


Ok sorry I'll clarify further it's legacy and I have no access to the
code, I'm no more than a user unfortunately.

Regards
Scott

On 30/10/2007, skip@theDevers <sk...@thedevers.org> wrote:
> BTW Scott, I am about a month away from writing a "Collections Agent" for
> use by AR people for collecting past due invoices and making notes about
> contacts and the like.  Because of the complexity of this application,
I'll
> likely be doing it as a java application.
>
> If you want to collaborate by giving me your AR app as a base, I'll roll
> them together and give you back a single AR app that does both functions.
I
> would particularly like this if you have the freedom to contribute your
work
> to Jira, not that I would expect the Ofbiz management to take java apps,
but
> then again, maybe other would like it.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:47 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>
>
> Sorry I should have mentioned that it's a non-OFBiz system.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 30/10/2007, skip@theDevers <sk...@thedevers.org> wrote:
> > Scott
> >
> > I need the same services as you.  This is for the case where the
customer
> > pays without specifying any invoices.  If invoices are specified, you
> apply
> > the payment to individual invoices the way you do now.
> >
> > Your existing non-web based screen will not change (unless you want it
> to).
> > There will just be another service to call to apply the payment as if
you
> > had selected the invoices beginning with the oldest first.
> >
> > Also, what do you do now if the customer overpays?
> >
> > Skip
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 12:23 AM
> > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
> >
> >
> > Hi Jacopo
> >
> > Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
> > of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
> > web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
> > invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
> > each invoice is selected.
> >
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> > On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> > > skip@theDevers wrote:
> > > > Jacopo
> > > >
> > > > As the man with the plan,
> > >
> > > uhm... me?  :-)
> > >
> > > > I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> > > > dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff
and
> > it
> > > > all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like
payments
> > are
> > > > meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to
> the
> > > > company, all with the same screens.
> > > >
> > > > I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user
> > enters a
> > > > payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices
> > (and a
> > > > store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the
> billing
> > > > account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest
> invoices
> > > > first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd suggest the following subtasks:
> > >
> > > a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
> > > associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated
to
> > > the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
> > > "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and
it
> > > will:
> > > - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
> > > them by date (older first)
> > > - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
> > > capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and
billingAccountId
> > > (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
> > > link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
> > >
> > > b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
> > > invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or
(maybe
> > > in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a
payment
> > > to a billing account.
> > >
> > > This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to
be
> > > a good fit for OFBiz.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Jacopo
> > >
> > > > Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have
> AR
> > > > needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction
> > set?
> > > >
> > > > Skip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>]

Ok sorry I'll clarify further it's legacy and I have no access to the
code, I'm no more than a user unfortunately.

Regards
Scott

On 30/10/2007, skip@theDevers <sk...@thedevers.org> wrote:
> BTW Scott, I am about a month away from writing a "Collections Agent" for
> use by AR people for collecting past due invoices and making notes about
> contacts and the like.  Because of the complexity of this application, I'll
> likely be doing it as a java application.
>
> If you want to collaborate by giving me your AR app as a base, I'll roll
> them together and give you back a single AR app that does both functions.  I
> would particularly like this if you have the freedom to contribute your work
> to Jira, not that I would expect the Ofbiz management to take java apps, but
> then again, maybe other would like it.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:47 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>
>
> Sorry I should have mentioned that it's a non-OFBiz system.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 30/10/2007, skip@theDevers <sk...@thedevers.org> wrote:
> > Scott
> >
> > I need the same services as you.  This is for the case where the customer
> > pays without specifying any invoices.  If invoices are specified, you
> apply
> > the payment to individual invoices the way you do now.
> >
> > Your existing non-web based screen will not change (unless you want it
> to).
> > There will just be another service to call to apply the payment as if you
> > had selected the invoices beginning with the oldest first.
> >
> > Also, what do you do now if the customer overpays?
> >
> > Skip
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 12:23 AM
> > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
> >
> >
> > Hi Jacopo
> >
> > Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
> > of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
> > web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
> > invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
> > each invoice is selected.
> >
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> > On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> > > skip@theDevers wrote:
> > > > Jacopo
> > > >
> > > > As the man with the plan,
> > >
> > > uhm... me?  :-)
> > >
> > > > I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> > > > dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and
> > it
> > > > all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments
> > are
> > > > meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to
> the
> > > > company, all with the same screens.
> > > >
> > > > I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user
> > enters a
> > > > payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices
> > (and a
> > > > store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the
> billing
> > > > account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest
> invoices
> > > > first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd suggest the following subtasks:
> > >
> > > a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
> > > associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
> > > the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
> > > "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
> > > will:
> > > - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
> > > them by date (older first)
> > > - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
> > > capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
> > > (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
> > > link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
> > >
> > > b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
> > > invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
> > > in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
> > > to a billing account.
> > >
> > > This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
> > > a good fit for OFBiz.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Jacopo
> > >
> > > > Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have
> AR
> > > > needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction
> > set?
> > > >
> > > > Skip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

RE: captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BTW Scott, I am about a month away from writing a "Collections Agent" for
use by AR people for collecting past due invoices and making notes about
contacts and the like.  Because of the complexity of this application, I'll
likely be doing it as a java application.

If you want to collaborate by giving me your AR app as a base, I'll roll
them together and give you back a single AR app that does both functions.  I
would particularly like this if you have the freedom to contribute your work
to Jira, not that I would expect the Ofbiz management to take java apps, but
then again, maybe other would like it.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:47 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments


Sorry I should have mentioned that it's a non-OFBiz system.

Regards
Scott

On 30/10/2007, skip@theDevers <sk...@thedevers.org> wrote:
> Scott
>
> I need the same services as you.  This is for the case where the customer
> pays without specifying any invoices.  If invoices are specified, you
apply
> the payment to individual invoices the way you do now.
>
> Your existing non-web based screen will not change (unless you want it
to).
> There will just be another service to call to apply the payment as if you
> had selected the invoices beginning with the oldest first.
>
> Also, what do you do now if the customer overpays?
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 12:23 AM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>
>
> Hi Jacopo
>
> Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
> of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
> web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
> invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
> each invoice is selected.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> > skip@theDevers wrote:
> > > Jacopo
> > >
> > > As the man with the plan,
> >
> > uhm... me?  :-)
> >
> > > I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> > > dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and
> it
> > > all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments
> are
> > > meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to
the
> > > company, all with the same screens.
> > >
> > > I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user
> enters a
> > > payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices
> (and a
> > > store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the
billing
> > > account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest
invoices
> > > first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> > >
> >
> > I'd suggest the following subtasks:
> >
> > a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
> > associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
> > the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
> > "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
> > will:
> > - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
> > them by date (older first)
> > - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
> > capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
> > (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
> > link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
> >
> > b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
> > invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
> > in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
> > to a billing account.
> >
> > This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
> > a good fit for OFBiz.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> > > Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have
AR
> > > needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction
> set?
> > >
> > > Skip
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>]

Sorry I should have mentioned that it's a non-OFBiz system.

Regards
Scott

On 30/10/2007, skip@theDevers <sk...@thedevers.org> wrote:
> Scott
>
> I need the same services as you.  This is for the case where the customer
> pays without specifying any invoices.  If invoices are specified, you apply
> the payment to individual invoices the way you do now.
>
> Your existing non-web based screen will not change (unless you want it to).
> There will just be another service to call to apply the payment as if you
> had selected the invoices beginning with the oldest first.
>
> Also, what do you do now if the customer overpays?
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 12:23 AM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
>
>
> Hi Jacopo
>
> Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
> of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
> web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
> invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
> each invoice is selected.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> > skip@theDevers wrote:
> > > Jacopo
> > >
> > > As the man with the plan,
> >
> > uhm... me?  :-)
> >
> > > I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> > > dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and
> it
> > > all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments
> are
> > > meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
> > > company, all with the same screens.
> > >
> > > I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user
> enters a
> > > payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices
> (and a
> > > store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
> > > account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
> > > first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> > >
> >
> > I'd suggest the following subtasks:
> >
> > a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
> > associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
> > the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
> > "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
> > will:
> > - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
> > them by date (older first)
> > - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
> > capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
> > (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
> > link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
> >
> > b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
> > invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
> > in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
> > to a billing account.
> >
> > This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
> > a good fit for OFBiz.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> > > Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
> > > needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction
> set?
> > >
> > > Skip
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Hi Skip, Jacopo, Scott,

IMHO this kind of threads should better be in dev ML

Thanks

Jacques

PS : thanks Jacopo for the fix on ShippingEvents.java

De : "Jacopo Cappellato" <ti...@sastau.it>
> Hi Scott,
> 
> Scott Gray wrote:
> > Hi Jacopo
> > 
> > Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
> > of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
> > web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
> > invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
> > each invoice is selected.
> > 
> 
> I think that you have perfectly described what is currently implemented 
> in OFbiz :-)
> Maybe I'm not been very clear on this: I was not suggesting to modify 
> the existing payment/payment application screens; instead I was 
> suggesting to add a new option, for billing accounts, to apply billing 
> account payments to billing account invoices by date; of course you can 
> continue, also in the billing account, to apply payments to specific 
> invoices.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> 
> > Regards
> > Scott
> > 
> > On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> >> skip@theDevers wrote:
> >>> Jacopo
> >>>
> >>> As the man with the plan,
> >> uhm... me?  :-)
> >>
> >>> I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> >>> dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and it
> >>> all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments are
> >>> meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
> >>> company, all with the same screens.
> >>>
> >>> I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user enters a
> >>> payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices (and a
> >>> store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
> >>> account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
> >>> first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> >>>
> >> I'd suggest the following subtasks:
> >>
> >> a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
> >> associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
> >> the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
> >> "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
> >> will:
> >> - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
> >> them by date (older first)
> >> - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
> >> capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
> >> (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
> >> link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
> >>
> >> b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
> >> invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
> >> in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
> >> to a billing account.
> >>
> >> This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
> >> a good fit for OFBiz.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >>> Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
> >>> needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction set?
> >>>
> >>> Skip
> >>
> >>
> 
>

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>]

Lol ok sorry, I've never actually worked on the billing account stuff
so I have no idea whats currently in place.  Nice work whoever did it
:-)

Scott

On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
> > Hi Jacopo
> >
> > Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
> > of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
> > web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
> > invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
> > each invoice is selected.
> >
>
> I think that you have perfectly described what is currently implemented
> in OFbiz :-)
> Maybe I'm not been very clear on this: I was not suggesting to modify
> the existing payment/payment application screens; instead I was
> suggesting to add a new option, for billing accounts, to apply billing
> account payments to billing account invoices by date; of course you can
> continue, also in the billing account, to apply payments to specific
> invoices.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> > On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> >> skip@theDevers wrote:
> >>> Jacopo
> >>>
> >>> As the man with the plan,
> >> uhm... me?  :-)
> >>
> >>> I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> >>> dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and it
> >>> all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments are
> >>> meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
> >>> company, all with the same screens.
> >>>
> >>> I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user enters a
> >>> payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices (and a
> >>> store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
> >>> account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
> >>> first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> >>>
> >> I'd suggest the following subtasks:
> >>
> >> a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
> >> associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
> >> the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
> >> "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
> >> will:
> >> - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
> >> them by date (older first)
> >> - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
> >> capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
> >> (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
> >> link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
> >>
> >> b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
> >> invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
> >> in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
> >> to a billing account.
> >>
> >> This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
> >> a good fit for OFBiz.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
> >>> Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
> >>> needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction set?
> >>>
> >>> Skip
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

Hi Scott,

Scott Gray wrote:
> Hi Jacopo
> 
> Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
> of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
> web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
> invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
> each invoice is selected.
> 

I think that you have perfectly described what is currently implemented 
in OFbiz :-)
Maybe I'm not been very clear on this: I was not suggesting to modify 
the existing payment/payment application screens; instead I was 
suggesting to add a new option, for billing accounts, to apply billing 
account payments to billing account invoices by date; of course you can 
continue, also in the billing account, to apply payments to specific 
invoices.

Cheers,

Jacopo


> Regards
> Scott
> 
> On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
>> skip@theDevers wrote:
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> As the man with the plan,
>> uhm... me?  :-)
>>
>>> I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
>>> dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and it
>>> all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments are
>>> meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
>>> company, all with the same screens.
>>>
>>> I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user enters a
>>> payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices (and a
>>> store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
>>> account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
>>> first and then to a credit if too much is received.
>>>
>> I'd suggest the following subtasks:
>>
>> a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
>> associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
>> the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
>> "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
>> will:
>> - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
>> them by date (older first)
>> - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
>> capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
>> (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
>> link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
>>
>> b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
>> invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
>> in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
>> to a billing account.
>>
>> This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
>> a good fit for OFBiz.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>> Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
>>> needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction set?
>>>
>>> Skip
>>
>>

Backorder Question

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Can anyone tell me how to create a backorder?  I created an order for 1
GZ-1001 and 1 WG-1111.  Because there are no GZ-1001s, I expected to find a
Requirement created but did not in spite of the fact that the Order sez [1
Backordered].

Also, are there other entities involved besides Requirement?

Skip

RE: Billing Accounts

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Yep, already got this done, except that it also provides a list of payments
in the statement period.  Just gotta check this all out with a few returns
and stuff to make sure it all works.

Thanks for all your help BTW in case I forgot to say it before.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:26 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Billing Accounts


Sorry,

I've missed the following statement:

skip@theDevers wrote:
>
> I am thinking of re-writing the  getBillingAccountNetBalance()  to use
> Invoice because that, along with Payment is the basis for statements sent
to
> customers and it makes sense to me from a data consistancy standpoint.
>

Wouldn't be better to provide a report to the customer about the balance
of a billing account with the following information:

==== billing account id (and other info) ====
account limit

* list of open invoices associated to the account with outstanding amount

* total outstanding amount

* difference between account limit and total outstanding amount

(optionally you could also include the list of unapplied payments, if any).

Of course you can create a new helper method in the BillingAccountWorker
class to help you to run the total, but it is important to use this only
for reporting purposes (and maybe it is easier to run the total directly
in your report); the reasons are in my last email.

Jacopo

Re: Billing Accounts

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

Sorry,

I've missed the following statement:

skip@theDevers wrote:
> 
> I am thinking of re-writing the  getBillingAccountNetBalance()  to use
> Invoice because that, along with Payment is the basis for statements sent to
> customers and it makes sense to me from a data consistancy standpoint.
> 

Wouldn't be better to provide a report to the customer about the balance 
of a billing account with the following information:

==== billing account id (and other info) ====
account limit

* list of open invoices associated to the account with outstanding amount

* total outstanding amount

* difference between account limit and total outstanding amount

(optionally you could also include the list of unapplied payments, if any).

Of course you can create a new helper method in the BillingAccountWorker 
class to help you to run the total, but it is important to use this only 
for reporting purposes (and maybe it is easier to run the total directly 
in your report); the reasons are in my last email.

Jacopo

RE: Billing Accounts

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Hmmm, now I am beginning to understand why Si wants to make a
PaymentApplication when an invoice is created.  Both are "messy", but I
guess I like your way better.

 I was just thinking of using the delta of OrderItem and OrderItemBilling,
but, because this value is only used in an advisory capacity, maybe getting
too clever isn't justified.  But I am gonna think on it some more.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:17 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Billing Accounts


Hi Skip,

skip@theDevers wrote:
> Hi Jacopo
>
> I have two questions concerning billing accounts.  Account balances are
> computed in BillingAccountWorker.getBillingAccountBalance().  This routine
> uses an algorithm that subtracts the sum of
OrderPaymentPreference.maxAmount
> where the statusId is "PAYMENT_NOT_RECEIVED" (and a few others).
>
> What I am wondering is why this entity was chosen over the sum of Invoices
> outstanding which to me makes more sense.  Maybe this way is faster?
>

Actually, that was the initial plan. Unfortunately, when you create an
order, and the customer asks to 'pay' it with a billing account we have
to consider this and adjust the billing account balance immediately (if
not, the customer could enter a lot of orders exceeding the billing
account credit/limit) ... but there is still no invoice for the order
(that is created when the order is shipped).

>
> Second, in the same file is getBillingAccountNetBalance() which returns
the
> sum of PaymentApplication.  The comment sez this "Calculates the net
balance
> of a billing account, which is sum of all amounts applied to invoices
minus
> sum of all amounts applied from payments".  If you write an order against
a
> BillingAccount, PaymentApplication is empty after an invoice is created,
so
> I don't see the value of this function.  Maybe I am misinterpreting the
name
> "getBillingAccountNetBalance".  However, getBillingAccountAvailableBalance
> returns the billing account limit - getBillingAccountNetBalance, so I
would
> have thought that getBillingAccountBalance() would =
> getBillingAccountAvailableBalance if there are no uninvoiced Orders.

Many of the methods in that class were created before the last
refactoring of the billing accounts and they will be removed soon: sorry
for the confusion. If I well remember there is only one balance method
that is still valid, all the other ones are deprecated.

Jacopo

>
> Note that I see that  getBillingAccountAvailableBalance is commented out
in
> the one place it is used in favor of getBillingAccountBalance().
>
> I am thinking of re-writing the  getBillingAccountNetBalance()  to use
> Invoice because that, along with Payment is the basis for statements sent
to
> customers and it makes sense to me from a data consistancy standpoint.
>
> Am I barking up the wrong tree?
>
> Skip
>

Re: Billing Accounts

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

Hi Skip,

skip@theDevers wrote:
> Hi Jacopo
> 
> I have two questions concerning billing accounts.  Account balances are
> computed in BillingAccountWorker.getBillingAccountBalance().  This routine
> uses an algorithm that subtracts the sum of OrderPaymentPreference.maxAmount
> where the statusId is "PAYMENT_NOT_RECEIVED" (and a few others).
> 
> What I am wondering is why this entity was chosen over the sum of Invoices
> outstanding which to me makes more sense.  Maybe this way is faster?
> 

Actually, that was the initial plan. Unfortunately, when you create an 
order, and the customer asks to 'pay' it with a billing account we have 
to consider this and adjust the billing account balance immediately (if 
not, the customer could enter a lot of orders exceeding the billing 
account credit/limit) ... but there is still no invoice for the order 
(that is created when the order is shipped).

> 
> Second, in the same file is getBillingAccountNetBalance() which returns the
> sum of PaymentApplication.  The comment sez this "Calculates the net balance
> of a billing account, which is sum of all amounts applied to invoices minus
> sum of all amounts applied from payments".  If you write an order against a
> BillingAccount, PaymentApplication is empty after an invoice is created, so
> I don't see the value of this function.  Maybe I am misinterpreting the name
> "getBillingAccountNetBalance".  However, getBillingAccountAvailableBalance
> returns the billing account limit - getBillingAccountNetBalance, so I would
> have thought that getBillingAccountBalance() would =
> getBillingAccountAvailableBalance if there are no uninvoiced Orders.

Many of the methods in that class were created before the last 
refactoring of the billing accounts and they will be removed soon: sorry 
for the confusion. If I well remember there is only one balance method 
that is still valid, all the other ones are deprecated.

Jacopo

> 
> Note that I see that  getBillingAccountAvailableBalance is commented out in
> the one place it is used in favor of getBillingAccountBalance().
> 
> I am thinking of re-writing the  getBillingAccountNetBalance()  to use
> Invoice because that, along with Payment is the basis for statements sent to
> customers and it makes sense to me from a data consistancy standpoint.
> 
> Am I barking up the wrong tree?
> 
> Skip
> 

Billing Accounts

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Hi Jacopo

I have two questions concerning billing accounts.  Account balances are
computed in BillingAccountWorker.getBillingAccountBalance().  This routine
uses an algorithm that subtracts the sum of OrderPaymentPreference.maxAmount
where the statusId is "PAYMENT_NOT_RECEIVED" (and a few others).

What I am wondering is why this entity was chosen over the sum of Invoices
outstanding which to me makes more sense.  Maybe this way is faster?


Second, in the same file is getBillingAccountNetBalance() which returns the
sum of PaymentApplication.  The comment sez this "Calculates the net balance
of a billing account, which is sum of all amounts applied to invoices minus
sum of all amounts applied from payments".  If you write an order against a
BillingAccount, PaymentApplication is empty after an invoice is created, so
I don't see the value of this function.  Maybe I am misinterpreting the name
"getBillingAccountNetBalance".  However, getBillingAccountAvailableBalance
returns the billing account limit - getBillingAccountNetBalance, so I would
have thought that getBillingAccountBalance() would =
getBillingAccountAvailableBalance if there are no uninvoiced Orders.

Note that I see that  getBillingAccountAvailableBalance is commented out in
the one place it is used in favor of getBillingAccountBalance().

I am thinking of re-writing the  getBillingAccountNetBalance()  to use
Invoice because that, along with Payment is the basis for statements sent to
customers and it makes sense to me from a data consistancy standpoint.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Skip

RE: captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Scott

I need the same services as you.  This is for the case where the customer
pays without specifying any invoices.  If invoices are specified, you apply
the payment to individual invoices the way you do now.

Your existing non-web based screen will not change (unless you want it to).
There will just be another service to call to apply the payment as if you
had selected the invoices beginning with the oldest first.

Also, what do you do now if the customer overpays?

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 12:23 AM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments


Hi Jacopo

Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
each invoice is selected.

Regards
Scott

On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> skip@theDevers wrote:
> > Jacopo
> >
> > As the man with the plan,
>
> uhm... me?  :-)
>
> > I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> > dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and
it
> > all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments
are
> > meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
> > company, all with the same screens.
> >
> > I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user
enters a
> > payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices
(and a
> > store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
> > account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
> > first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> >
>
> I'd suggest the following subtasks:
>
> a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
> associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
> the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
> "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
> will:
> - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
> them by date (older first)
> - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
> capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
> (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
> link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
>
> b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
> invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
> in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
> to a billing account.
>
> This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
> a good fit for OFBiz.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>
> > Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
> > needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction
set?
> >
> > Skip
>
>
>

Re: Store Credits creating a new billing account

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>


> If you create an Order and ship it to DemoCustCompany on a billing account,
> then do a store credit refund, you end up with a second billing account
> created to which the refund is posted (PaymentApplication and the like).
> 
> I think this is an error.  I think the ReturnHeader should be created with
> the same billingAccountId as the OrderHeader had.  However, it is not, it is
> created with a blank billingAccountId.
> 
> I am wondering if the author would comment as to whether or not this was
> intentional (the creation of a second billing account for store credits) and
> if so, what was the thinking?

I agree, this sounds weird

Jacques

> Skip
> 

Store Credits creating a new billing account

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

If you create an Order and ship it to DemoCustCompany on a billing account,
then do a store credit refund, you end up with a second billing account
created to which the refund is posted (PaymentApplication and the like).

I think this is an error.  I think the ReturnHeader should be created with
the same billingAccountId as the OrderHeader had.  However, it is not, it is
created with a blank billingAccountId.

I am wondering if the author would comment as to whether or not this was
intentional (the creation of a second billing account for store credits) and
if so, what was the thinking?

Skip

Re: Automatic Backorders?

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

Skip:
I am converting what I did to using SECAS.
i will be putting this in the Jiras I have
welcome any input on there use.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1286
is the main one.

skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 2:20 PM:
> Not having much luck here.  I set the minimum stock on hand for a GZ-1001 to
> 0 and re-order quantity to 5.  Sold some more (putting the ATP at -8), but
> nothing I could detect happened.  So, I went to Manufacturing->MRP and ran
> it for the Web Store.  Nothing that I can detect happened.
> 
> Can someone tell me how to write an order with a backorder on it and then
> have a purchase order written so that when it is received, the shipping
> clerk knows the item belongs to an order?  Maybe this is some new code I
> need to write?
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:10 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?
> 
> 
> You need to set the details in Product -> Facilities, even then I'm
> not sure if it happens automatically or if you need to run an mrp
> first.
> 
> Scott
> 
> On 01/11/2007, BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:
>> oops you talking about creating back orders.
>> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
>>
>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
>>> been a while
>>> look at
>>> checkInventoryAvailability
>>>
>>> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
>>>> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
> I
>>>> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I
> am
>>>> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I
> sell an
>>>> item not in stock.
>>>>
>>>> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic
> (other
>>>> than discussions on how to improve it).
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the
> source
>>>> code again.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Automatic Backorders?

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

in checkInventoryAvailability
                dispatcher.runAsync("sendOrderBackorderNotification",
UtilMisc.toMap("orderId", orderId, "userLogin", userLogin));

is where I put code to call CheckPO's
Now in dropship the POs are generated based on the order so the vendor
may get a PO for one item to drop ship to a customer.
for local inventory it is a seperate process that is closer to MRP.
the PO's are then send the SendPOtoVendor.
where the PO is formated per that particular vendor specificatiions and
sent to them.
then could be via web scrapping, FTP, Email, EDI.

hope to have this all submitted soon

skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 2:20 PM:
> Not having much luck here.  I set the minimum stock on hand for a GZ-1001 to
> 0 and re-order quantity to 5.  Sold some more (putting the ATP at -8), but
> nothing I could detect happened.  So, I went to Manufacturing->MRP and ran
> it for the Web Store.  Nothing that I can detect happened.
> 
> Can someone tell me how to write an order with a backorder on it and then
> have a purchase order written so that when it is received, the shipping
> clerk knows the item belongs to an order?  Maybe this is some new code I
> need to write?
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:10 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?
> 
> 
> You need to set the details in Product -> Facilities, even then I'm
> not sure if it happens automatically or if you need to run an mrp
> first.
> 
> Scott
> 
> On 01/11/2007, BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:
>> oops you talking about creating back orders.
>> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
>>
>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
>>> been a while
>>> look at
>>> checkInventoryAvailability
>>>
>>> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
>>>> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
> I
>>>> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I
> am
>>>> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I
> sell an
>>>> item not in stock.
>>>>
>>>> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic
> (other
>>>> than discussions on how to improve it).
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the
> source
>>>> code again.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: Automatic Backorders?

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Not having much luck here.  I set the minimum stock on hand for a GZ-1001 to
0 and re-order quantity to 5.  Sold some more (putting the ATP at -8), but
nothing I could detect happened.  So, I went to Manufacturing->MRP and ran
it for the Web Store.  Nothing that I can detect happened.

Can someone tell me how to write an order with a backorder on it and then
have a purchase order written so that when it is received, the shipping
clerk knows the item belongs to an order?  Maybe this is some new code I
need to write?

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:10 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?


You need to set the details in Product -> Facilities, even then I'm
not sure if it happens automatically or if you need to run an mrp
first.

Scott

On 01/11/2007, BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:
> oops you talking about creating back orders.
> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
>
> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
> > been a while
> > look at
> > checkInventoryAvailability
> >
> > skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
> >> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
I
> >> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I
am
> >> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I
sell an
> >> item not in stock.
> >>
> >> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic
(other
> >> than discussions on how to improve it).
> >>
> >> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the
source
> >> code again.
> >>
> >> Skip
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

RE: Automatic Backorders?

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Scott

Thanks, I'll check this out.  I noticed that checkInventoryAvailability() is
being run as a sandbox job and I have three entries about two hours apart in
the log saying the job was run.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gray [mailto:lektran@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:10 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?


You need to set the details in Product -> Facilities, even then I'm
not sure if it happens automatically or if you need to run an mrp
first.

Scott

On 01/11/2007, BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:
> oops you talking about creating back orders.
> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
>
> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
> > been a while
> > look at
> > checkInventoryAvailability
> >
> > skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
> >> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
I
> >> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I
am
> >> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I
sell an
> >> item not in stock.
> >>
> >> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic
(other
> >> than discussions on how to improve it).
> >>
> >> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the
source
> >> code again.
> >>
> >> Skip
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Automatic Backorders?

[Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>]

You need to set the details in Product -> Facilities, even then I'm
not sure if it happens automatically or if you need to run an mrp
first.

Scott

On 01/11/2007, BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:
> oops you talking about creating back orders.
> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
>
> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
> > been a while
> > look at
> > checkInventoryAvailability
> >
> > skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
> >> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.  I
> >> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I am
> >> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I sell an
> >> item not in stock.
> >>
> >> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
> >> than discussions on how to improve it).
> >>
> >> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the source
> >> code again.
> >>
> >> Skip
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Postal Address Validation

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

thanks have added this to the comments


Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 3:10 PM:
> BJ,
> 
> De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
>> Is there away I can assign some of these to me.
> 
> You have to be a commiter. 
> 
>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 11/3/2007 2:36 PM:
>>> I believe 203 is a companion to 100
>>> it allows the formatting on the screen.
>>> it may have to be reworked.
>>> possible link the two
> 
> Following your comment in OFBIZ-203, I had already linked the 2 issues before you suggested in ML
> 
> Jacques
> 
>>> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
>>>> +1 
>>>>
>>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
>>>>
>>>> I wonder now if we should not close https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203 
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
>>>>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
>>>>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
>>>>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
>>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Postal Address Validation

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

I live in a motorcoach. have since 89
Since I move a lot, no knows where to drop in on me..
LOL
but my reason for not being a committer is not time,but that I have to
make public information I prefer to keep private
so as long as submitting to the jira works, that is what I will do.
I will test before sending.



Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 3:59 PM:
> De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
>> don't plan to go that far. LOL
>> thanks
> 
> Sometimes, I look at my freetime and I wonder why I did ;o) But even with a (benevolent) dictator nobody forces you, you are still
> free (but without much freetime ;o)
> 
> It's all depend of you, and of your relatives. Beware without any relatives or friends you could sunk in it (I'm alone at home this
> week, and I fell like I'm drowned)
> 
> Jacques
> 
> PS : Joke :o) Any  workalcoholic  will understand though
> 
>> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 3:10 PM:
>>> BJ,
>>>
>>> De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
>>>> Is there away I can assign some of these to me.
>>> You have to be a commiter.
>>>
>>>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 11/3/2007 2:36 PM:
>>>>> I believe 203 is a companion to 100
>>>>> it allows the formatting on the screen.
>>>>> it may have to be reworked.
>>>>> possible link the two
>>> Following your comment in OFBIZ-203, I had already linked the 2 issues before you suggested in ML
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>>> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder now if we should not close https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
>>>>>>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
>>>>>>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
>>>>>>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
>>>>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: Postal Address Validation

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

"(I'm alone at home this week, and I fell like I'm drowned)"
Gads, me too!  It sucks!

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 5:00 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Postal Address Validation


De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
> don't plan to go that far. LOL
> thanks

Sometimes, I look at my freetime and I wonder why I did ;o) But even with a
(benevolent) dictator nobody forces you, you are still
free (but without much freetime ;o)

It's all depend of you, and of your relatives. Beware without any relatives
or friends you could sunk in it (I'm alone at home this
week, and I fell like I'm drowned)

Jacques

PS : Joke :o) Any  workalcoholic  will understand though

> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 3:10 PM:
> > BJ,
> >
> > De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
> >> Is there away I can assign some of these to me.
> >
> > You have to be a commiter.
> >
> >> BJ Freeman sent the following on 11/3/2007 2:36 PM:
> >>> I believe 203 is a companion to 100
> >>> it allows the formatting on the screen.
> >>> it may have to be reworked.
> >>> possible link the two
> >
> > Following your comment in OFBIZ-203, I had already linked the 2 issues
before you suggested in ML
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >>> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder now if we should not close
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
> >>>>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly
important, I
> >>>>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira
emails:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
> >>>>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
> >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Postal Address Validation

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
> don't plan to go that far. LOL
> thanks

Sometimes, I look at my freetime and I wonder why I did ;o) But even with a (benevolent) dictator nobody forces you, you are still
free (but without much freetime ;o)

It's all depend of you, and of your relatives. Beware without any relatives or friends you could sunk in it (I'm alone at home this
week, and I fell like I'm drowned)

Jacques

PS : Joke :o) Any  workalcoholic  will understand though

> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 3:10 PM:
> > BJ,
> >
> > De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
> >> Is there away I can assign some of these to me.
> >
> > You have to be a commiter.
> >
> >> BJ Freeman sent the following on 11/3/2007 2:36 PM:
> >>> I believe 203 is a companion to 100
> >>> it allows the formatting on the screen.
> >>> it may have to be reworked.
> >>> possible link the two
> >
> > Following your comment in OFBIZ-203, I had already linked the 2 issues before you suggested in ML
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >>> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder now if we should not close https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
> >>>>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
> >>>>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
> >>>>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
> >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Postal Address Validation

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

don't plan to go that far. LOL
thanks

Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 3:10 PM:
> BJ,
> 
> De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
>> Is there away I can assign some of these to me.
> 
> You have to be a commiter. 
> 
>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 11/3/2007 2:36 PM:
>>> I believe 203 is a companion to 100
>>> it allows the formatting on the screen.
>>> it may have to be reworked.
>>> possible link the two
> 
> Following your comment in OFBIZ-203, I had already linked the 2 issues before you suggested in ML
> 
> Jacques
> 
>>> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
>>>> +1 
>>>>
>>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
>>>>
>>>> I wonder now if we should not close https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203 
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
>>>>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
>>>>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
>>>>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
>>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Postal Address Validation

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

BJ,

De : "BJ Freeman" <bj...@free-man.net>
> Is there away I can assign some of these to me.

You have to be a commiter. 

> 
> BJ Freeman sent the following on 11/3/2007 2:36 PM:
> > I believe 203 is a companion to 100
> > it allows the formatting on the screen.
> > it may have to be reworked.
> > possible link the two

Following your comment in OFBIZ-203, I had already linked the 2 issues before you suggested in ML

Jacques

> > 
> > Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
> >> +1 
> >>
> >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
> >>
> >> I wonder now if we should not close https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203 
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
> >>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
> >>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
> >>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

RE: Postal Address Validation

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BJ

I don't think you need to have them assigned.  I have been fixing issues and
just attaching patch files and they have been handled.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 4:37 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Postal Address Validation


Is there away I can assign some of these to me.

BJ Freeman sent the following on 11/3/2007 2:36 PM:
> I believe 203 is a companion to 100
> it allows the formatting on the screen.
> it may have to be reworked.
> possible link the two
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
>> +1
>>
>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
>>
>> I wonder now if we should not close
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
>>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
>>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira
emails:
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
>>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: Postal Address Validation

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

Is there away I can assign some of these to me.

BJ Freeman sent the following on 11/3/2007 2:36 PM:
> I believe 203 is a companion to 100
> it allows the formatting on the screen.
> it may have to be reworked.
> possible link the two
> 
> 
> Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
>> +1 
>>
>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
>>
>> I wonder now if we should not close https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203 
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
>>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
>>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
>>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Postal Address Validation

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

I believe 203 is a companion to 100
it allows the formatting on the screen.
it may have to be reworked.
possible link the two


Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 11/3/2007 1:26 PM:
> +1 
> 
> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100
> 
> I wonder now if we should not close https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203 
> 
> Jacques
> 
> De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
>> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
>> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:
>>
>>
>> It seems google has come to our rescue.
>> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Postal Address Validation

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

+1 

Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-100

I wonder now if we should not close https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-203 

Jacques

De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
> BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
> wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:
> 
> 
> It seems google has come to our rescue.
> http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6
> 
>

Postal Address Validation

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BJ Freeman found a nifty service.  It is so earthshakingly important, I
wanted to highlight it here for all those who blow through the Jira emails:


It seems google has come to our rescue.
http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/06/geocoding-at-last.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ciq/ciq.html#6

Re: Automatic Backorders?

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

also have a look at getSuppliersForProduct


skip@theDevers sent the following on 11/1/2007 11:28 AM:
> Thanks BJ, I'll have a look at this all.  I agree about the multiple
> suppliers.  I am writing a more complicated automated purchasing app partly
> because of this (different supplier prices, different shipping times,
> minimum order quantities, etc.).  However, I also want to produce something
> stupid that can be run to just fill backorders from the prefered supplier so
> rush orders with backorders on them can get handled by someone without
> in-depth purchasing knowledge.
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:10 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?
> 
> 
> here is the code in checkInventoryAvailability
> 
>             List exprs = UtilMisc.toList(new
> EntityExpr("availableToPromiseTotal", EntityOperator.LESS_THAN, new
> Double(0)));
> 
> as you have already found out it is run in the sandbox.
> 
> there is a lot more to consider that what is checkInventoryAvailability
> Like inventory that has multiple suppliers. and those supplier have a
> preference.
> the Preference it updated from past orders to them.
> This has to do with cost, delivery, and billing agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:17 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> Thanks for the response.  This is just OOTB ofbiz trying to see how
>> backorders get handled so I can report on them for the AR work I am doing.
>> I am just trying to generate a backorder and see what entities are created
>> and how it affects billing and the like after the order is received.
>>
>> To start with, I just want to create a backorder associated with an order
>> that has some of the parts shipped.
>>
>> I have not yet been able to create a backorder that I can recognize as
> such.
>> I am expecting it to turn up in Requirements, but that may be the wrong
>> assumption.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:01 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?
>>
>>
>> oops you talking about creating back orders.
>> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
>>
>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
>>> been a while
>>> look at
>>> checkInventoryAvailability
>>>
>>> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
>>>> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
>> I
>>>> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I
> am
>>>> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I
> sell
>> an
>>>> item not in stock.
>>>>
>>>> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
>>>> than discussions on how to improve it).
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the
> source
>>>> code again.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Nothing to do with Ofbiz

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

This has nothing to do with Ofbiz.  But, I just got this email from out of
the blue from someone I never heard of and I thought it was so good that I
would share it.

"There is a calmness to a life lived in Gratitude, a quiet joy.  Your friend
is that man who knows all about you, and still likes you."

PaymentApplication Confusion

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

I was just checking out the effects of creating a store credit on a billing
account and found that the action ends up creating one Payment and two
PaymentApplications the sum of which is double the Payment amount.  I always
thought that the SUM of PaymentApplications for a Payment should equal the
Payment amount.

Can someone comment on this?

Skip

Re: Automatic Backorders?

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

Skip,

skip@theDevers wrote:
> Thanks BJ, I'll have a look at this all.  I agree about the multiple
> suppliers.  I am writing a more complicated automated purchasing app partly
> because of this (different supplier prices, different shipping times,
> minimum order quantities, etc.).  However, I also want to produce something
> stupid that can be run to just fill backorders from the prefered supplier so
> rush orders with backorders on them can get handled by someone without
> in-depth purchasing knowledge.

you may want to try to set the requirementMethodEnumId field in the 
Product entity (or ProductStore): there is a drop-down field for this in 
the Edit Product screen.
There are many options, I'd suggest "When QOH reaches..."

All the ("product") requirements created in the system are automatically 
associated to the main supplier (there is a field to mark the main 
supplier in the SupplierProduct entity).

Jacopo



> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:10 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?
> 
> 
> here is the code in checkInventoryAvailability
> 
>             List exprs = UtilMisc.toList(new
> EntityExpr("availableToPromiseTotal", EntityOperator.LESS_THAN, new
> Double(0)));
> 
> as you have already found out it is run in the sandbox.
> 
> there is a lot more to consider that what is checkInventoryAvailability
> Like inventory that has multiple suppliers. and those supplier have a
> preference.
> the Preference it updated from past orders to them.
> This has to do with cost, delivery, and billing agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:17 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> Thanks for the response.  This is just OOTB ofbiz trying to see how
>> backorders get handled so I can report on them for the AR work I am doing.
>> I am just trying to generate a backorder and see what entities are created
>> and how it affects billing and the like after the order is received.
>>
>> To start with, I just want to create a backorder associated with an order
>> that has some of the parts shipped.
>>
>> I have not yet been able to create a backorder that I can recognize as
> such.
>> I am expecting it to turn up in Requirements, but that may be the wrong
>> assumption.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:01 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?
>>
>>
>> oops you talking about creating back orders.
>> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
>>
>> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
>>> been a while
>>> look at
>>> checkInventoryAvailability
>>>
>>> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
>>>> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
>> I
>>>> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I
> am
>>>> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I
> sell
>> an
>>>> item not in stock.
>>>>
>>>> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
>>>> than discussions on how to improve it).
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the
> source
>>>> code again.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

RE: Automatic Backorders?

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Thanks BJ, I'll have a look at this all.  I agree about the multiple
suppliers.  I am writing a more complicated automated purchasing app partly
because of this (different supplier prices, different shipping times,
minimum order quantities, etc.).  However, I also want to produce something
stupid that can be run to just fill backorders from the prefered supplier so
rush orders with backorders on them can get handled by someone without
in-depth purchasing knowledge.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:10 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?


here is the code in checkInventoryAvailability

            List exprs = UtilMisc.toList(new
EntityExpr("availableToPromiseTotal", EntityOperator.LESS_THAN, new
Double(0)));

as you have already found out it is run in the sandbox.

there is a lot more to consider that what is checkInventoryAvailability
Like inventory that has multiple suppliers. and those supplier have a
preference.
the Preference it updated from past orders to them.
This has to do with cost, delivery, and billing agreements.



skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:17 PM:
> BJ
>
> Thanks for the response.  This is just OOTB ofbiz trying to see how
> backorders get handled so I can report on them for the AR work I am doing.
> I am just trying to generate a backorder and see what entities are created
> and how it affects billing and the like after the order is received.
>
> To start with, I just want to create a backorder associated with an order
> that has some of the parts shipped.
>
> I have not yet been able to create a backorder that I can recognize as
such.
> I am expecting it to turn up in Requirements, but that may be the wrong
> assumption.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:01 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?
>
>
> oops you talking about creating back orders.
> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
>
> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
>> been a while
>> look at
>> checkInventoryAvailability
>>
>> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
>>> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
> I
>>> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I
am
>>> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I
sell
> an
>>> item not in stock.
>>>
>>> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
>>> than discussions on how to improve it).
>>>
>>> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the
source
>>> code again.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: Automatic Backorders?

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

here is the code in checkInventoryAvailability

            List exprs = UtilMisc.toList(new
EntityExpr("availableToPromiseTotal", EntityOperator.LESS_THAN, new
Double(0)));

as you have already found out it is run in the sandbox.

there is a lot more to consider that what is checkInventoryAvailability
Like inventory that has multiple suppliers. and those supplier have a
preference.
the Preference it updated from past orders to them.
This has to do with cost, delivery, and billing agreements.



skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:17 PM:
> BJ
> 
> Thanks for the response.  This is just OOTB ofbiz trying to see how
> backorders get handled so I can report on them for the AR work I am doing.
> I am just trying to generate a backorder and see what entities are created
> and how it affects billing and the like after the order is received.
> 
> To start with, I just want to create a backorder associated with an order
> that has some of the parts shipped.
> 
> I have not yet been able to create a backorder that I can recognize as such.
> I am expecting it to turn up in Requirements, but that may be the wrong
> assumption.
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:01 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?
> 
> 
> oops you talking about creating back orders.
> are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.
> 
> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
>> been a while
>> look at
>> checkInventoryAvailability
>>
>> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
>>> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
> I
>>> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I am
>>> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I sell
> an
>>> item not in stock.
>>>
>>> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
>>> than discussions on how to improve it).
>>>
>>> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the source
>>> code again.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: Automatic Backorders?

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BJ

Thanks for the response.  This is just OOTB ofbiz trying to see how
backorders get handled so I can report on them for the AR work I am doing.
I am just trying to generate a backorder and see what entities are created
and how it affects billing and the like after the order is received.

To start with, I just want to create a backorder associated with an order
that has some of the parts shipped.

I have not yet been able to create a backorder that I can recognize as such.
I am expecting it to turn up in Requirements, but that may be the wrong
assumption.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:01 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?


oops you talking about creating back orders.
are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.

BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
> been a while
> look at
> checkInventoryAvailability
>
> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
>> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.
I
>> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I am
>> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I sell
an
>> item not in stock.
>>
>> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
>> than discussions on how to improve it).
>>
>> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the source
>> code again.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: Automatic Backorders?

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

oops you talking about creating back orders.
are you doing a shopping cart or something custom.

BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/31/2007 1:31 PM:
> been a while
> look at
> checkInventoryAvailability
> 
> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
>> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.  I
>> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I am
>> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I sell an
>> item not in stock.
>>
>> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
>> than discussions on how to improve it).
>>
>> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the source
>> code again.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

RE: Automatic Backorders?

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Yep, I have checkInventory and reserveInventory = "Y".  I was using the OOTB
demo data and this is the default for the web store.  I also tried setting
requireInventory = "Y", but then I couldnt sell it.  I tried isDemoStore="N"
but that didn't make any difference.

I am thinking that there is a setting somewhere else that might affect this.

The checkInventoryAvailability() service is exactly what is needed.  Gonna
see if I can track down how it gets called.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:32 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Automatic Backorders?


been a while
look at
checkInventoryAvailability

skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.  I
> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I am
> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I sell
an
> item not in stock.
>
> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
> than discussions on how to improve it).
>
> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the source
> code again.
>
> Skip
>
>
>
>

Re: Automatic Backorders?

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

been a while
look at
checkInventoryAvailability

skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/31/2007 10:58 AM:
> I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.  I
> have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I am
> expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I sell an
> item not in stock.
> 
> I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
> than discussions on how to improve it).
> 
> I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the source
> code again.
> 
> Skip
> 
> 
> 
> 

Automatic Backorders?

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

I am trying figure out how to have a backorder generated automatically.  I
have tried various store settings and can't get anything to happen.  I am
expecting a Requirement (maybe that's wrong?) to be generated when I sell an
item not in stock.

I searched Naggle for "backorder" and found nothing on this topic (other
than discussions on how to improve it).

I am hoping somone will respond so I don't have to dig through the source
code again.

Skip

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>]

Hi Jacopo

Our customers generally make payments for a specific invoice or group
of invoices so this wouldn't work for us.  In our current system (non
web UI) we log a payment and then use a screen with a list of open
invoices to allocate the payment with the payment balance reducing as
each invoice is selected.

Regards
Scott

On 29/10/2007, Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> wrote:
> skip@theDevers wrote:
> > Jacopo
> >
> > As the man with the plan,
>
> uhm... me?  :-)
>
> > I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> > dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and it
> > all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments are
> > meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
> > company, all with the same screens.
> >
> > I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user enters a
> > payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices (and a
> > store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
> > account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
> > first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> >
>
> I'd suggest the following subtasks:
>
> a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
> associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
> the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
> "billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
> will:
> - select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
> them by date (older first)
> - iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
> capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
> (this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
> link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)
>
> b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
> invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
> in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
> to a billing account.
>
> This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
> a good fit for OFBiz.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacopo
>
> > Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
> > needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction set?
> >
> > Skip
>
>
>

Re: Reading html template files question

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

Hi Skip,

Just a pointer : sendOrderNotificationScreen

Jacques

De : "skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>
> I am writing a service to email billing account statements.  I want to read
> a template and generate an email from it.  This is in the context of a
> scheduled service.  I have to believe there is already code doing something
> similiar (sending mass emails generated from a template).
> 
> Can someone point me to some sample code?
> 
> Skip
> 

Reading html template files question

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

I am writing a service to email billing account statements.  I want to read
a template and generate an email from it.  This is in the context of a
scheduled service.  I have to believe there is already code doing something
similiar (sending mass emails generated from a template).

Can someone point me to some sample code?

Skip

RE: captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Like I said, the man with the plan

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 12:15 AM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments


skip@theDevers wrote:
> Jacopo
>
> As the man with the plan,

uhm... me?  :-)

> I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and it
> all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments are
> meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
> company, all with the same screens.
>
> I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user enters
a
> payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices (and
a
> store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
> account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
> first and then to a credit if too much is received.
>

I'd suggest the following subtasks:

a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments
associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to
the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter
"billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it
will:
- select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort
them by date (older first)
- iterate on the list and for each of them call the service
capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId
(this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture"
link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)

b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to
invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe
in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment
to a billing account.

This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be
a good fit for OFBiz.

What do you think?

Jacopo

> Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
> needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction set?
>
> Skip

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

skip@theDevers wrote:
> Jacopo
> 
> As the man with the plan, 

uhm... me?  :-)

> I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
> dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and it
> all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments are
> meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
> company, all with the same screens.
> 
> I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user enters a
> payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices (and a
> store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
> account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
> first and then to a credit if too much is received.
> 

I'd suggest the following subtasks:

a) implement a new service to automatically apply the payments 
associated to a billing account to the older open invoices associated to 
the same account; the new service will have one mandatory parameter 
"billingAccountId" (and maybe one optional parameter "paymentId") and it 
will:
- select the open invoices associated to the billing account and sort 
them by date (older first)
- iterate on the list and for each of them call the service 
capturePaymentsByInvoice passing in the invoice id and billingAccountId 
(this is the service that is invoked when you click on the "capture" 
link near the invoice in the billingaccoun-invoices screen)

b) the new service can be invoked by a new link ("apply payments to 
invoices") at the top of the billing account->invoices screen or (maybe 
in your custom application) triggered every time you associate a payment 
to a billing account.

This should cover your requirements but it is also generic enough to be 
a good fit for OFBiz.

What do you think?

Jacopo

> Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
> needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction set?
> 
> Skip

RE: captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Jacopo

As the man with the plan, I wanted to throw this new plan past you.  I have
dug pretty deeply into the existing payment/billing account  stuff and it
all seems a bit arcane to me and mostly because it looks like payments are
meant to be made from the company to a vendor and from a customer to the
company, all with the same screens.

I want to create a really easy to use AR payment system.  The user enters a
payment and can then either apply the payment to individual invoices (and a
store credit if too much is received) or he can apply it to the billing
account, in which case we automatically apply it to the oldest invoices
first and then to a credit if too much is received.

Is this too simplistic for some reason I am missing?  Do others have AR
needs outside this that would justify a more complicated transaction set?

Skip

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

skip@theDevers wrote:
> Jacopo
> 
> Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second
> question.  Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices.  The customer
> pays for all 4 invoices.  Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends it
> back for a credit.  The following week, he buys something else.  Is there
> some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options?
> Could the same logic be used?
> 

Yes,

the business logic is the following one (correct me if I am wrong):

1) a customer return is created for 2 items
2) you should select as the return type: "store credit" this will store 
  (as a PaymentApplication) the credit to a billing account associated 
to the customer
3) the new amount will increase the available balance of the billing 
account (that can be used during order entry)
This should work, but if you see something wrong please let us know.

Jacopo


> 
> 
> Skip
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments
> 
> 
> skip@theDevers wrote:
>> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
>> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
>> captureBillingAccountPayment does not.
>>
>> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it
>> the right thing to do in this case).
>>
>> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the
>>
>>
>>             if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) {
>>
>> which for me is always empty and never gets executed.
>>
>> Can the author comment?  Is there some case where this will contain
>> paymentApplications?
>>
>> Skip
> 
> Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated
> to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$.
> You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole
> payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication
> record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId.
> Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click
> on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the
> captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the
> PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found
> --> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true -->
> a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice;
> the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available'
> amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther
> invoice...
> At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID.
> 
> Does it make sense?
> 
> Jacopo
> 
> 

RE: captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Jacopo

Makes perfect sense, in fact, its the almost perfect solution to my second
question.  Lets say you sold 4 items on 4 days on 4 invoices.  The customer
pays for all 4 invoices.  Then, a week later, item 2 breaks and he sends it
back for a credit.  The following week, he buys something else.  Is there
some way for the credit to show up on the in sales order payment options?
Could the same logic be used?



Skip


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:tiz@sastau.it]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:23 AM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: captureBillingAccountPayments


skip@theDevers wrote:
> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
> captureBillingAccountPayment does not.
>
> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it
> the right thing to do in this case).
>
> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the
>
>
>             if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) {
>
> which for me is always empty and never gets executed.
>
> Can the author comment?  Is there some case where this will contain
> paymentApplications?
>
> Skip

Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated
to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$.
You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole
payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication
record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId.
Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click
on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the
captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the
PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found
--> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true -->
a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice;
the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available'
amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther
invoice...
At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID.

Does it make sense?

Jacopo

Re: captureBillingAccountPayments

[Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>]

skip@theDevers wrote:
> I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
> captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
> captureBillingAccountPayment does not.
> 
> However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it
> the right thing to do in this case).
> 
> My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the
> 
> 
>             if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) {
> 
> which for me is always empty and never gets executed.
> 
> Can the author comment?  Is there some case where this will contain
> paymentApplications?
> 
> Skip

Let's say you get a billing account and two not paid invoices associated 
to it, one for 30$ and one for 50$.
You get a payment from your customer for 70$; you associate the whole 
payment to the billing account: this will create a PaymentApplication 
record with billingAccountId set, and a null invoiceId.
Then, if you go to the billing account's invoices screen and you click 
on the "capture payments" link near to the 30$ invoice, then the 
captureBillingAccountPayments service will be called -> the 
PaymentApplication with null invoiceId (i.e. still not applied) is found 
--> if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) is true -->
a new PaymentApplication is created for 30$ and applied to the invoice; 
the original PaymentApplication is updated and the new 'available' 
amount is 40$ (i.e. 70-30=40); we can now do the same with the otther 
invoice...
At the end the first invoice will be PAID and the second PARTIALLY PAID.

Does it make sense?

Jacopo

captureBillingAccountPayments

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

I am having a discussion with Si about billing accounts.  For me,
captureBillingAccountPayments works and the deprecated
captureBillingAccountPayment does not.

However, captureBillingAccountPayments essentially does nothing (which it
the right thing to do in this case).

My question is, what was the intent of the logic after the


            if (UtilValidate.isNotEmpty(paymentApplications)) {

which for me is always empty and never gets executed.

Can the author comment?  Is there some case where this will contain
paymentApplications?

Skip

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

I agree with BJ.

A lawyer friend here (very good lawyer too) also had the same idea that patents make for good 
control. I told him the exact same thing that BJ just mentioned. Patents make for clear 
concessions (for the patent holder).

But then, lawyers do make a living suing for patent infringements. Just that for business folks, 
it's too much angst and trouble to file a suit that doesn't translate to constructive business 
endeavor (like making new products, services).

It's about how fast we can move ahead, not about how much we can prevent others from moving ahead.

Jonathon

skip@theDevers wrote:
> Sage advice all!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:47 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> Learned a valuable lesson from my Granddad and dad
> we have a mfgr company that was special niche
> for years we had competitors that tried to get market share
> but we were the leader in the field.
> so when I went to work for them, I was very concerned about the patents.
> they said.
> patents only keep them from stopping us from making it.
> but our innovation is what keeps up in front.
> so from my perspective, holding on to rights only protects me from
> someone saying I don't have the right to do it.
> with apache I don't worry about that.
> and my innovation keeps me ahead.
> what I share here is something I did months ago, but just getting around
> to adding it to ofbiz
> 
> 
> 
> skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/24/2007 7:19 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> You're way to easy on your customers.  Giving us hard-axxxs a bad name.  I
>> always keep the rights to the code I write unless it's a salaried long
> term
>> job.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:44 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> the online service is fee based. sorry.
>> however what I am proposing here would be a big boone to us all
>> and that, after I get the supplier emails running, is my next task, if I
>> am allowed
>>
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:36 PM:
>>> Wanna share the code?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
>>> webstores.
>>> been doing it since 1998.
>>> see my other email.
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
>>>> BJ
>>>>
>>>> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the
>> mix
>>>> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe
>>> the
>>>> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more
>> complicated
>>>> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to
> order
>>> a
>>>> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
>>>>
>>>> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right
>> in
>>>> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
>>>> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I
>> knew
>>>> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and
> case
>>>> three where I didn't have a clue.
>>>>
>>>> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
>>>> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This
>>> has
>>>> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and
>>> is
>>>> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for
>>> changes.
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
>>>> here is the scenario.
>>>> one product
>>>> two suppliers
>>>> one used to refill local stock
>>>> one one to dropship.
>>>>
>>>> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
>>>> refills local stock.
>>>> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
>>>>
>>>> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
>>>> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
>>>> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
>>>>
>>>> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
>>>> shipping date to customer
>>>> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back
>>> orders.
>>>> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
>>>> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
>>>> would best suit the configuration for a client.
>>>>
>>>> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
>>>> of ofbiz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>>>>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>>>>
>>>>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>>>>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>>>>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
>>>>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
>>>>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>>>>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock
> (ie
>>>>> does the stock out).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>>>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>>>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>>>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>>>>> BJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc
> for
>>>>>>> quick
>>>>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>>>>> counter
>>>>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>>>>> has to
>>>>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>>>>> get it
>>>>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>>>>> Fixing
>>>>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Sage advice all!

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:47 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


Learned a valuable lesson from my Granddad and dad
we have a mfgr company that was special niche
for years we had competitors that tried to get market share
but we were the leader in the field.
so when I went to work for them, I was very concerned about the patents.
they said.
patents only keep them from stopping us from making it.
but our innovation is what keeps up in front.
so from my perspective, holding on to rights only protects me from
someone saying I don't have the right to do it.
with apache I don't worry about that.
and my innovation keeps me ahead.
what I share here is something I did months ago, but just getting around
to adding it to ofbiz



skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/24/2007 7:19 PM:
> BJ
>
> You're way to easy on your customers.  Giving us hard-axxxs a bad name.  I
> always keep the rights to the code I write unless it's a salaried long
term
> job.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
> the online service is fee based. sorry.
> however what I am proposing here would be a big boone to us all
> and that, after I get the supplier emails running, is my next task, if I
> am allowed
>
>
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:36 PM:
>> Wanna share the code?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
>> webstores.
>> been doing it since 1998.
>> see my other email.
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
>>> BJ
>>>
>>> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the
> mix
>>> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe
>> the
>>> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more
> complicated
>>> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to
order
>> a
>>> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
>>>
>>> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right
> in
>>> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
>>> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I
> knew
>>> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and
case
>>> three where I didn't have a clue.
>>>
>>> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
>>> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This
>> has
>>> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and
>> is
>>> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for
>> changes.
>>> Skip
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
>>> here is the scenario.
>>> one product
>>> two suppliers
>>> one used to refill local stock
>>> one one to dropship.
>>>
>>> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
>>> refills local stock.
>>> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
>>>
>>> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
>>> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
>>> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
>>>
>>> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
>>> shipping date to customer
>>> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back
>> orders.
>>> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
>>> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
>>> would best suit the configuration for a client.
>>>
>>> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
>>> of ofbiz.
>>>
>>>
>>> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>>>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>>>
>>>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>>>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>>>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>>>
>>>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
>>>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
>>>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>>>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock
(ie
>>>> does the stock out).
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>>>> well.
>>>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>>>> BJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>> who
>>>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc
for
>>>>>> quick
>>>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>>>> /
>>>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>>>> counter
>>>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>>>> has to
>>>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>>>> get it
>>>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>>>> Fixing
>>>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

Learned a valuable lesson from my Granddad and dad
we have a mfgr company that was special niche
for years we had competitors that tried to get market share
but we were the leader in the field.
so when I went to work for them, I was very concerned about the patents.
they said.
patents only keep them from stopping us from making it.
but our innovation is what keeps up in front.
so from my perspective, holding on to rights only protects me from
someone saying I don't have the right to do it.
with apache I don't worry about that.
and my innovation keeps me ahead.
what I share here is something I did months ago, but just getting around
to adding it to ofbiz



skip@theDevers sent the following on 10/24/2007 7:19 PM:
> BJ
> 
> You're way to easy on your customers.  Giving us hard-axxxs a bad name.  I
> always keep the rights to the code I write unless it's a salaried long term
> job.
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> the online service is fee based. sorry.
> however what I am proposing here would be a big boone to us all
> and that, after I get the supplier emails running, is my next task, if I
> am allowed
> 
> 
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:36 PM:
>> Wanna share the code?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
>> webstores.
>> been doing it since 1998.
>> see my other email.
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
>>> BJ
>>>
>>> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the
> mix
>>> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe
>> the
>>> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more
> complicated
>>> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to order
>> a
>>> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
>>>
>>> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right
> in
>>> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
>>> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I
> knew
>>> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and case
>>> three where I didn't have a clue.
>>>
>>> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
>>> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This
>> has
>>> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and
>> is
>>> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for
>> changes.
>>> Skip
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
>>> here is the scenario.
>>> one product
>>> two suppliers
>>> one used to refill local stock
>>> one one to dropship.
>>>
>>> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
>>> refills local stock.
>>> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
>>>
>>> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
>>> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
>>> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
>>>
>>> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
>>> shipping date to customer
>>> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back
>> orders.
>>> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
>>> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
>>> would best suit the configuration for a client.
>>>
>>> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
>>> of ofbiz.
>>>
>>>
>>> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>>>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>>>
>>>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>>>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>>>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>>>
>>>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
>>>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
>>>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>>>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock (ie
>>>> does the stock out).
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>>>> well.
>>>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>>>> BJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>> who
>>>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>>>>> quick
>>>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>>>> /
>>>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>>>> counter
>>>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>>>> has to
>>>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>>>> get it
>>>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>>>> Fixing
>>>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BJ

You're way to easy on your customers.  Giving us hard-axxxs a bad name.  I
always keep the rights to the code I write unless it's a salaried long term
job.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:44 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


the online service is fee based. sorry.
however what I am proposing here would be a big boone to us all
and that, after I get the supplier emails running, is my next task, if I
am allowed


Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:36 PM:
> Wanna share the code?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
> skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
> webstores.
> been doing it since 1998.
> see my other email.
>
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the
mix
>> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe
> the
>> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more
complicated
>> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to order
> a
>> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
>>
>> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right
in
>> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
>> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I
knew
>> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and case
>> three where I didn't have a clue.
>>
>> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
>> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This
> has
>> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and
> is
>> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for
> changes.
>> Skip
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
>> here is the scenario.
>> one product
>> two suppliers
>> one used to refill local stock
>> one one to dropship.
>>
>> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
>> refills local stock.
>> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
>>
>> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
>> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
>> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
>>
>> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
>> shipping date to customer
>> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back
> orders.
>> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
>> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
>> would best suit the configuration for a client.
>>
>> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
>> of ofbiz.
>>
>>
>> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>>
>>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>>
>>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
>>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
>>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock (ie
>>> does the stock out).
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>>> well.
>>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>>> BJ
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>>> folks
>>>>> who
>>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>>>> quick
>>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>>> existing
>>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>>> /
>>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>>> counter
>>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>>> has to
>>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>>> get it
>>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>>> Fixing
>>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Expect I'll get to it before you then.

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:44 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


the online service is fee based. sorry.
however what I am proposing here would be a big boone to us all
and that, after I get the supplier emails running, is my next task, if I
am allowed


Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:36 PM:
> Wanna share the code?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
> skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
> webstores.
> been doing it since 1998.
> see my other email.
>
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the
mix
>> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe
> the
>> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more
complicated
>> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to order
> a
>> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
>>
>> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right
in
>> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
>> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I
knew
>> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and case
>> three where I didn't have a clue.
>>
>> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
>> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This
> has
>> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and
> is
>> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for
> changes.
>> Skip
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
>> here is the scenario.
>> one product
>> two suppliers
>> one used to refill local stock
>> one one to dropship.
>>
>> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
>> refills local stock.
>> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
>>
>> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
>> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
>> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
>>
>> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
>> shipping date to customer
>> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back
> orders.
>> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
>> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
>> would best suit the configuration for a client.
>>
>> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
>> of ofbiz.
>>
>>
>> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>>
>>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>>
>>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
>>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
>>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock (ie
>>> does the stock out).
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>>> well.
>>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>>> BJ
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>>> folks
>>>>> who
>>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>>>> quick
>>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>>> existing
>>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>>> /
>>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>>> counter
>>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>>> has to
>>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>>> get it
>>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>>> Fixing
>>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

the online service is fee based. sorry.
however what I am proposing here would be a big boone to us all
and that, after I get the supplier emails running, is my next task, if I
am allowed


Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:36 PM:
> Wanna share the code?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
> webstores.
> been doing it since 1998.
> see my other email.
> 
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the mix
>> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe
> the
>> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more complicated
>> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to order
> a
>> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
>>
>> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right in
>> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
>> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I knew
>> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and case
>> three where I didn't have a clue.
>>
>> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
>> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This
> has
>> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and
> is
>> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for
> changes.
>> Skip
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
>> here is the scenario.
>> one product
>> two suppliers
>> one used to refill local stock
>> one one to dropship.
>>
>> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
>> refills local stock.
>> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
>>
>> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
>> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
>> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
>>
>> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
>> shipping date to customer
>> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back
> orders.
>> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
>> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
>> would best suit the configuration for a client.
>>
>> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
>> of ofbiz.
>>
>>
>> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>>
>>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>>
>>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
>>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
>>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock (ie
>>> does the stock out).
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>>> well.
>>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>>> BJ
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>>> folks
>>>>> who
>>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>>>> quick
>>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>>> existing
>>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>>> /
>>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>>> counter
>>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>>> has to
>>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>>> get it
>>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>>> Fixing
>>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

[Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Wanna share the code?

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:06 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
webstores.
been doing it since 1998.
see my other email.

Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
> BJ
>
> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the mix
> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe
the
> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more complicated
> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to order
a
> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
>
> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right in
> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I knew
> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and case
> three where I didn't have a clue.
>
> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This
has
> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and
is
> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for
changes.
>
> Skip
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
> here is the scenario.
> one product
> two suppliers
> one used to refill local stock
> one one to dropship.
>
> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
> refills local stock.
> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
>
> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
>
> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
> shipping date to customer
> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back
orders.
>
> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
> would best suit the configuration for a client.
>
> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
> of ofbiz.
>
>
> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>
>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>
>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock (ie
>> does the stock out).
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>> well.
>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>
>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>> BJ
>>>>
>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>
>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>> folks
>>>> who
>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>
>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>>> quick
>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>> existing
>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>> /
>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>> counter
>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>> has to
>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>> get it
>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>> Fixing
>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>
>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

skip I have implemented similar in the service I provide on line for
webstores.
been doing it since 1998.
see my other email.

Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:04 PM:
> BJ
> 
> This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the mix
> two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe the
> customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more complicated
> if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to order a
> hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....
> 
> The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right in
> this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
> tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I knew
> for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and case
> three where I didn't have a clue.
> 
> I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
> separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This has
> worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and is
> one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for changes.
> 
> Skip
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
> here is the scenario.
> one product
> two suppliers
> one used to refill local stock
> one one to dropship.
> 
> so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
> refills local stock.
> and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.
> 
> now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
> and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
> customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.
> 
> so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
> shipping date to customer
> or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back orders.
> 
> Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
> I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
> would best suit the configuration for a client.
> 
> this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
> of ofbiz.
> 
> 
> David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>>
>> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
>> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
>> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>>
>> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
>> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
>> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
>> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock (ie
>> does the stock out).
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>>> well.
>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>
>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>> BJ
>>>>
>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>
>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>>> folks
>>>> who
>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>>> that).  So,
>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>
>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>>> quick
>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>> existing
>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>>> bookkeeping
>>>> /
>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>>> counter
>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>>> has to
>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>>> get it
>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>> Fixing
>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>
>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

[Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BJ

This logic gets very complicated very quickly.  You can throw into the mix
two dropship suppliers with different prices and shipping times.  Maybe the
customer wants one and it comes in a box of 10.  Its even more complicated
if you require a 35% margin and getting that margin requires you to order a
hundred.  It gets even more complicated still if....

The application I am converting to Ofbiz took me two years to get right in
this area ( at least right from the clients perspective).  Two years of
tweeking that it is.  I ended up with three scenerios, case 1 where I knew
for sure what to do.  Case 2 where I was pretty sure what to do, and case
three where I didn't have a clue.

I ended up doing case 1 without operator intervention, and presenting 2
separate lists of the last 2 cases to a human operator to approve.  This has
worked in 21 installations of this application for over 15 years now and is
one of the few things I don't get complaints about or requests for changes.

Skip


-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:36 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
here is the scenario.
one product
two suppliers
one used to refill local stock
one one to dropship.

so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
refills local stock.
and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.

now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.

so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
shipping date to customer
or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back orders.

Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
would best suit the configuration for a client.

this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
of ofbiz.


David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
>
> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
>
> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
> without inventory in stock is allowed.
>
> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock (ie
> does the stock out).
>
> -David
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>> well.
>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>
>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>> BJ
>>>
>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>> fulfillment houses.
>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>> folks
>>> who
>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>> that).  So,
>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>
>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>
>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>> quick
>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>> existing
>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>> bookkeeping
>>> /
>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>
>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>> counter
>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>> has to
>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>> get it
>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>> Fixing
>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>
>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>
>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

Ok lets take it from the item issuance.
here is the scenario.
one product
two suppliers
one used to refill local stock
one one to dropship.

so you may have local stock or it may be ordered from the supplier that
refills local stock.
and under certain circumstances the dropshipper is used.

now you may check inventory which means look at any orders pending
and on determining that the delivery date is beyond the ship date to the
customer may opt to send the order to the Dropshipper.

so putting in parms like use local inventory if with in so many days of
shipping date to customer
or if available use dropship under any circumstance to satisfy back orders.

Not sure if this goes with the product or inventory in a facility
I was thinking of having a place in the product to assign a service that
would best suit the configuration for a client.

this would allow many scenarios with out really changing the programming
of ofbiz.


David E Jones sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:19 PM:
> 
> I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...
> 
> This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a
> ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping
> without inventory in stock is allowed.
> 
> The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as would
> certain other things. The best place to implement it is probably in the
> issue order item to shipment service (the one that creates the
> ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing out of stock (ie
> does the stock out).
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> 
>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
>> well.
>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>
>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>> BJ
>>>
>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>> fulfillment houses.
>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>>>> folks
>>> who
>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>>>> that).  So,
>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>
>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>
>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>> quick
>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>> existing
>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>>> bookkeeping
>>> /
>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>
>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>>> counter
>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>>>> has to
>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>>>> get it
>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>> Fixing
>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>
>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>
>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

I'm not sure I totally understand what you're looking at BJ...

This may very well make sense as a configuration flag, either for a  
ProductStore or for a Facility, so specify whether or not shipping  
without inventory in stock is allowed.

The Quick Ship Entire Order service would be affected by this, as  
would certain other things. The best place to implement it is  
probably in the issue order item to shipment service (the one that  
creates the ItemIssuance records). That's what actually takes thing  
out of stock (ie does the stock out).

-David


On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:05 PM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper  
> as well.
> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
> of the product which is part of ERP.
>
> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>
>
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>> fulfillment houses.
>> you don't have their inventory.
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there  
>>> are folks
>> who
>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like  
>>> that).  So,
>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>
>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>
>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc  
>>> for
>> quick
>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>> existing
>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better  
>>> bookkeeping
>> /
>>> automatic ordering.
>>>
>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at  
>>> the counter
>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he  
>>> has to
>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen  
>>> to get it
>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>> Fixing
>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>
>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>
>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>
>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>
>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>
>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

Yes having it set for the whole store would be the way to go.
then as new products are added they adopt the store settings.
will work up a proposal and put in the jira
comments and support welcome


Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 5:41 PM:
> BJ
> 
> This is a really good idea, but too fine grained for me.  Perhaps we could
> have a similiar drop down for the store page and then a ? "Want to add this
> to all products?".
> 
> I can forsee the need to have variances for some products, but most would
> use one method.
> 
> Maybe a service you could run to set all products to one service and then go
> and individually do the ones that varied?
> 
> The more I think about this per-product service, the more I like it.
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:04 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> so to expand on this.
> we have many services that do many things.
> but each customer has a different way they want it done
> so in products page, a dropdown of toplevel logic service.
> for Out of Stock.
> the consultant use the webtools import to put in their top level
> service, name thisismytoplevelforoutofstock.
> this service would then call the other services that are here to
> implement their business logic
> 
> hope that clears it up.
> 
> BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:49 PM:
>> Ok I guess this comes under business logic
>> and hopefully we can have may such services that can be configured based
>> on the product, but assigning these services in the product configuration.
>> I am trying to think not as this is my requirement, but a best way to
>> expand ofbiz that lets consultant configure with out changing ofbiz as
> such.
>> and yes, allow to be backward compatible by putting in a default service
>> with the current business logic
>>
>> I think this effort would satisfy everyone and allow for future
>> expansion with a lot more ease.
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:38 PM:
>>> BJ
>>>
>>> I think we are talking about different issues.  The flag would only be
> used
>>> to determine whether the existing quickship code is run or whether
> inventory
>>> checks are done and requirements created for out of stock items when the
>>> quickship button is pressed.  The satisfaction of the requirements, i.e.
>>> dropshipped or backordered etc. would be determined by other (hopefully
>>> existing) code.  In this way, existing Ofbiz users who want the existing
>>> behavior would be unaffected and those of us with walk-in customers who
>>> backorder things have an easier time getting it done.
>>>
>>> For my current customer, I actually need to give the purchasing guy both
>>> options (dropship from multiple suppliers and backorder and ship
> locally).
>>> But, I expect this code to be in some other area (haven't looked yet).
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:05 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
> well.
>>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>>
>>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>>> BJ
>>>>
>>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>>> fulfillment houses.
>>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>>
>>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
> folks
>>>> who
>>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).
> So,
>>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>>
>>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>>> quick
>>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>>> existing
>>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>>> bookkeeping
>>>> /
>>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>>> counter
>>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has
> to
>>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get
>>> it
>>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>>> Fixing
>>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skip
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>>
>>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

[Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BJ

This is a really good idea, but too fine grained for me.  Perhaps we could
have a similiar drop down for the store page and then a ? "Want to add this
to all products?".

I can forsee the need to have variances for some products, but most would
use one method.

Maybe a service you could run to set all products to one service and then go
and individually do the ones that varied?

The more I think about this per-product service, the more I like it.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:04 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


so to expand on this.
we have many services that do many things.
but each customer has a different way they want it done
so in products page, a dropdown of toplevel logic service.
for Out of Stock.
the consultant use the webtools import to put in their top level
service, name thisismytoplevelforoutofstock.
this service would then call the other services that are here to
implement their business logic

hope that clears it up.

BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:49 PM:
> Ok I guess this comes under business logic
> and hopefully we can have may such services that can be configured based
> on the product, but assigning these services in the product configuration.
> I am trying to think not as this is my requirement, but a best way to
> expand ofbiz that lets consultant configure with out changing ofbiz as
such.
>
> and yes, allow to be backward compatible by putting in a default service
> with the current business logic
>
> I think this effort would satisfy everyone and allow for future
> expansion with a lot more ease.
>
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:38 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> I think we are talking about different issues.  The flag would only be
used
>> to determine whether the existing quickship code is run or whether
inventory
>> checks are done and requirements created for out of stock items when the
>> quickship button is pressed.  The satisfaction of the requirements, i.e.
>> dropshipped or backordered etc. would be determined by other (hopefully
>> existing) code.  In this way, existing Ofbiz users who want the existing
>> behavior would be unaffected and those of us with walk-in customers who
>> backorder things have an easier time getting it done.
>>
>> For my current customer, I actually need to give the purchasing guy both
>> options (dropship from multiple suppliers and backorder and ship
locally).
>> But, I expect this code to be in some other area (haven't looked yet).
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:05 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as
well.
>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>
>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>> BJ
>>>
>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>> fulfillment houses.
>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
folks
>>> who
>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).
So,
>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>
>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>
>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>> quick
>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>> existing
>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>> bookkeeping
>>> /
>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>
>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>> counter
>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has
to
>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get
>> it
>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>> Fixing
>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>
>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>
>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

so to expand on this.
we have many services that do many things.
but each customer has a different way they want it done
so in products page, a dropdown of toplevel logic service.
for Out of Stock.
the consultant use the webtools import to put in their top level
service, name thisismytoplevelforoutofstock.
this service would then call the other services that are here to
implement their business logic

hope that clears it up.

BJ Freeman sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:49 PM:
> Ok I guess this comes under business logic
> and hopefully we can have may such services that can be configured based
> on the product, but assigning these services in the product configuration.
> I am trying to think not as this is my requirement, but a best way to
> expand ofbiz that lets consultant configure with out changing ofbiz as such.
> 
> and yes, allow to be backward compatible by putting in a default service
> with the current business logic
> 
> I think this effort would satisfy everyone and allow for future
> expansion with a lot more ease.
> 
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:38 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> I think we are talking about different issues.  The flag would only be used
>> to determine whether the existing quickship code is run or whether inventory
>> checks are done and requirements created for out of stock items when the
>> quickship button is pressed.  The satisfaction of the requirements, i.e.
>> dropshipped or backordered etc. would be determined by other (hopefully
>> existing) code.  In this way, existing Ofbiz users who want the existing
>> behavior would be unaffected and those of us with walk-in customers who
>> backorder things have an easier time getting it done.
>>
>> For my current customer, I actually need to give the purchasing guy both
>> options (dropship from multiple suppliers and backorder and ship locally).
>> But, I expect this code to be in some other area (haven't looked yet).
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:05 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
>> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
>> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as well.
>> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
>> of the product which is part of ERP.
>>
>> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
>>
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>>> BJ
>>>
>>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>>> fulfillment houses.
>>> you don't have their inventory.
>>>
>>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks
>>> who
>>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
>>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>>
>>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>>
>>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>>> quick
>>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>>> existing
>>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>> bookkeeping
>>> /
>>>> automatic ordering.
>>>>
>>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>> counter
>>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
>>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get
>> it
>>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>>> Fixing
>>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>>
>>>> Skip
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>>
>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>>
>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: OrderHead and TrackingCode

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

split shipments

William Perng sent the following on 10/25/2007 1:24 PM:
> There is a many to many relationship between OrderHeader table and
> TrackingCode table.  I thought many(OrderHeader) to one(TrackingCode) should
> be good enough.  Could anyone please tell me what's the design idea(or
> business benefit) behind this ?  
> 
> William
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: OrderHead and TrackingCode

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Oct 25, 2007, at 2:24 PM, William Perng wrote:

> There is a many to many relationship between OrderHeader table and
> TrackingCode table.  I thought many(OrderHeader) to one 
> (TrackingCode) should
> be good enough.  Could anyone please tell me what's the design idea(or
> business benefit) behind this ?

In general tracking codes are attached to visiting of certain URLs or  
other things. There can certainly be more than one in a session,  
though usually one per tracking code type attached to orders. All  
codes seen during the session are attached to the Visit though.

-David

OrderHead and TrackingCode

[William Perng <wp...@salmonllc.com>]

There is a many to many relationship between OrderHeader table and
TrackingCode table.  I thought many(OrderHeader) to one(TrackingCode) should
be good enough.  Could anyone please tell me what's the design idea(or
business benefit) behind this ?  

William

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

Ok I guess this comes under business logic
and hopefully we can have may such services that can be configured based
on the product, but assigning these services in the product configuration.
I am trying to think not as this is my requirement, but a best way to
expand ofbiz that lets consultant configure with out changing ofbiz as such.

and yes, allow to be backward compatible by putting in a default service
with the current business logic

I think this effort would satisfy everyone and allow for future
expansion with a lot more ease.

Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 4:38 PM:
> BJ
> 
> I think we are talking about different issues.  The flag would only be used
> to determine whether the existing quickship code is run or whether inventory
> checks are done and requirements created for out of stock items when the
> quickship button is pressed.  The satisfaction of the requirements, i.e.
> dropshipped or backordered etc. would be determined by other (hopefully
> existing) code.  In this way, existing Ofbiz users who want the existing
> behavior would be unaffected and those of us with walk-in customers who
> backorder things have an easier time getting it done.
> 
> For my current customer, I actually need to give the purchasing guy both
> options (dropship from multiple suppliers and backorder and ship locally).
> But, I expect this code to be in some other area (haven't looked yet).
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:05 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
> since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
> supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as well.
> this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
> of the product which is part of ERP.
> 
> So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.
> 
> 
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
>> BJ
>>
>> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
>> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
>> fulfillment houses.
>> you don't have their inventory.
>>
>> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks
>> who
>>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
>>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>>
>>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>>
>>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
>> quick
>>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>> existing
>>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
> bookkeeping
>> /
>>> automatic ordering.
>>>
>>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
> counter
>>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
>>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get
> it
>>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
>> Fixing
>>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>>
>>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>>> reluctant to accept it.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>>
>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>>
>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>
>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>
>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

[Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BJ

I think we are talking about different issues.  The flag would only be used
to determine whether the existing quickship code is run or whether inventory
checks are done and requirements created for out of stock items when the
quickship button is pressed.  The satisfaction of the requirements, i.e.
dropshipped or backordered etc. would be determined by other (hopefully
existing) code.  In this way, existing Ofbiz users who want the existing
behavior would be unaffected and those of us with walk-in customers who
backorder things have an easier time getting it done.

For my current customer, I actually need to give the purchasing guy both
options (dropship from multiple suppliers and backorder and ship locally).
But, I expect this code to be in some other area (haven't looked yet).

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:05 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as well.
this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
of the product which is part of ERP.

So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.


Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
> BJ
>
> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
> fulfillment houses.
> you don't have their inventory.
>
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>> Dave
>>
>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks
> who
>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>
>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>
>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
> quick
>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
> existing
>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
bookkeeping
> /
>> automatic ordering.
>>
>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
counter
>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get
it
>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
> Fixing
>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>
>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>> reluctant to accept it.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>
>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>
>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>
>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>
>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>
>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>
>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>
>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

if the inventory supplier is a dropshipper would be the consideration.
since you can have many suppliers for a product, you could have a
supplier you order from for your local supplier and a drop shipper as well.
this would come under a scenario of determining best cost and delivery
of the product which is part of ERP.

So I don't think a simple flag is the answer.


Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 3:33 PM:
> BJ
> 
> No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
> determines the behavior satisfies both camps.
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
> fulfillment houses.
> you don't have their inventory.
> 
> Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
>> Dave
>>
>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks
> who
>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>
>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>
>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
> quick
>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
> existing
>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better bookkeeping
> /
>> automatic ordering.
>>
>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter
>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it
>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
> Fixing
>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>
>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>> reluctant to accept it.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>
>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>
>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>
>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>
>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>
>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>
>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>
>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

[Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>]

BJ

No, I have considered only my own needs.  However, a property which
determines the behavior satisfies both camps.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:27 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
fulfillment houses.
you don't have their inventory.

Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
> Dave
>
> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks
who
> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>
> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>
> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for
quick
> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
existing
> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better bookkeeping
/
> automatic ordering.
>
> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter
> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it
> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.
Fixing
> the quickship will take care of it.
>
> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
> reluctant to accept it.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>
>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>
> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>
>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>
> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>
>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>
>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>
> It will most likely be rejected.
>
> -David
>
>
>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>
>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>> --
>> Dave Tenerowicz
>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>
>> Office: 303.493.6727
>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

Skip have you consider the sequence for a dropshipper, and some
fulfillment houses.
you don't have their inventory.

Skip sent the following on 10/24/2007 1:09 PM:
> Dave
> 
> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks who
> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
> 
> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
> 
> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for quick
> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the existing
> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better bookkeeping /
> automatic ordering.
> 
> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter
> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it
> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.  Fixing
> the quickship will take care of it.
> 
> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
> reluctant to accept it.
> 
> Skip
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
> 
>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>> that the system "knew" was not available?
> 
> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
> 
>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>> leaving an audit trail etc.
> 
> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
> 
>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>
>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
> 
> It will most likely be rejected.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>
>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>> --
>> Dave Tenerowicz
>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>
>> Office: 303.493.6727
>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Oct 24, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Skip wrote:

> David
>
> My apologies.  I read this comment "It will most likely be  
> rejected." and
> was not amused.  I personally should always refrain from responding  
> to these
> and will endeavor to do so in the future.

Notice I didn't say "I'll fight it" or "I will reject it". I'm just  
saying that given other users and varieties of requirements it  
probably not just slide through, but would be contested and possibly  
voted on (if discussions broke down).

I said what I meant, nothing else implied.

> It is obvious to me that most people who currently use Ofbiz like  
> it the way
> it is or it would have long since been changed.  However, as the  
> user base
> grows, so will the needs.  Rejecting an idea out of hand and  
> discouraging
> people from contributing seems counter-productive just because it  
> is the way
> most people do it.

Ummmm... if everyone was happy with things we wouldn't have on the  
order of 100 commits per week...

Yes, things are being constantly reviewed and revised. I didn't  
reject your idea out of hand, just trying to point out the background  
and other requirements that are:

1. just as valid as your current ones
2. possibly the requirements of YOUR next client

> In this case, if you use properties to control behavior, it doesn't  
> have to
> be either/or. I've spent three or four months now learning Ofbiz  
> and a month
> writing code for it.  I have contracts now for three years of work  
> based on
> it.  What I write will not be suitable for everyone, but it will be  
> useful
> to many.  I can take the time and write it so that it is easily  
> customizable
> by the devs who listen here or just bang it out for the current  
> customer and
> not bother offering it up.
>
> I would perfer to contribute my work back to the community.  I feel  
> a strong
> obligation to do so.

Yes, that is the point of OFBiz, and I hope you will! Not that it's  
easy though...

> However, when I read comments like the above I start
> asking myself, "whats the point of doing the extra work when it  
> will not be
> accepted?".

That is why it is good to make a proposal to the dev mailing list  
first, get feedback, and then implement. The contributor best  
practices document has some other things related to this.

> Some will say that it can still be found in Jira, but unless
> you monitor the Jira religiously, trying to find unaccepted  
> contributions is
> painful.

Yes, painful, not a bad word. That's a good part of my time every  
day... ;) My intent with that time is to protect keep things flowing  
in a safe direction, avoid changes that are short-term reactions and  
push people to look at a bigger picture and more generic ways of  
doing things that still satisfy the requirements at hand.

> In my view, you could have encourages contributions by saying "If  
> it has
> wide appeal and does not break existing users, we can consider it"  
> instead
> of "It will most likely be rejected".

Yes, perhaps, but what's the fun in that? The idea as you stated it  
WOULD most likely be rejected. The point, when proposing something,  
is to open discussion, not complain, attack, and lock it down.  
Perhaps I was over-blunt... thanks for not giving up.

> Just my opinionated jerk self 2 cents.

Don't worry, without opinionated jerks OFBiz wouldn't exist (nor  
would most other open source software, or much of anything else of  
value in this world... someone has to have a strong enough opinion to  
push any little or big thing forward). Pretty much everyone getting  
into OFBiz bumps up against this stuff. If we only had one process  
that every business followed our lives would be easy. On the other  
hand, we all have jobs because of client insanity. ;)

-David

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Adrian Crum <ad...@hlmksw.com>]

Skip wrote:
> David
> 
> My apologies.  I read this comment "It will most likely be rejected." and
> was not amused.  I personally should always refrain from responding to these
> and will endeavor to do so in the future.

Submit the Jira issue anyway and get anyone interested in it to vote on it.

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Skip,

Just my rambling 2 cents here. :)

It takes time to write "If it has wide appeal and does not break existing users, we can consider 
it". Quicker to write, "It'll most likely be rejected" (so ask me more about why, or just shoot me).

I'd like to bring up a curious experience in my 13-year career.

Some folks can do everything, marketing and coding and even HR management. It's like a soccer 
player who can be a defender and an attacker. However, no one man/woman can do everything at any 
one time. Even if I were a great PR guy and a great coder, if I try to do both at the same time, 
I'd be bad at both!

Oh yeah, I've tried to do my business being EVERYTHING all the time, zero or minimal delegation (I 
thought I could have all the profits to myself). Things fell apart instead. I've learned some good 
and painful lessons in life.

Best to always assume the best intention in people when reading what they write. Nope, I can't 
always practice what I just preached. All too human. Heh. :P

Jonathon

Skip wrote:
> David
> 
> My apologies.  I read this comment "It will most likely be rejected." and
> was not amused.  I personally should always refrain from responding to these
> and will endeavor to do so in the future.
> 
> It is obvious to me that most people who currently use Ofbiz like it the way
> it is or it would have long since been changed.  However, as the user base
> grows, so will the needs.  Rejecting an idea out of hand and discouraging
> people from contributing seems counter-productive just because it is the way
> most people do it.
> 
> In this case, if you use properties to control behavior, it doesn't have to
> be either/or. I've spent three or four months now learning Ofbiz and a month
> writing code for it.  I have contracts now for three years of work based on
> it.  What I write will not be suitable for everyone, but it will be useful
> to many.  I can take the time and write it so that it is easily customizable
> by the devs who listen here or just bang it out for the current customer and
> not bother offering it up.
> 
> I would perfer to contribute my work back to the community.  I feel a strong
> obligation to do so.  However, when I read comments like the above I start
> asking myself, "whats the point of doing the extra work when it will not be
> accepted?".  Some will say that it can still be found in Jira, but unless
> you monitor the Jira religiously, trying to find unaccepted contributions is
> painful.
> 
> In my view, you could have encourages contributions by saying "If it has
> wide appeal and does not break existing users, we can consider it" instead
> of "It will most likely be rejected".
> 
> Just my opinionated jerk self 2 cents.
> 
> Skip
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:18 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, in a friendly mood today aren't we?
> 
> Don't be so quick to judge people.
> 
> Keep in mind that OFBiz supports companies that don't track inventory
> in OFBiz, and currently most companies don't do book keeping in OFBiz.
> 
> It doesn't mean it's sloppy or bad or from malicious intent or that
> the people who want to do things this way are incompetent, or that
> the analysts who designed it or developers who created it are
> incompetent.
> 
> OFBiz is a collaborative community working together to create a
> system that can be used (hopefully without too much customization) in
> a wide variety of businesses and a wide variety of requirements for
> interactions with other systems and such.
> 
> Please try not to undermine that. It is the foundation of this
> effort. If you want something done about this, please frame it in
> that light.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Skip wrote:
> 
>> Dave
>>
>> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
>> folks who
>> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
>> that).  So,
>> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>>
>> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>>
>> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
>> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc
>> for quick
>> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
>> existing
>> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
>> bookkeeping /
>> automatic ordering.
>>
>> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
>> counter
>> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
>> has to
>> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
>> get it
>> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for
>> him.  Fixing
>> the quickship will take care of it.
>>
>> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
>> reluctant to accept it.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>
>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>>
>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>>
>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>
>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>> It will most likely be rejected.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>
>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>
>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>
>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

[Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>]

David

My apologies.  I read this comment "It will most likely be rejected." and
was not amused.  I personally should always refrain from responding to these
and will endeavor to do so in the future.

It is obvious to me that most people who currently use Ofbiz like it the way
it is or it would have long since been changed.  However, as the user base
grows, so will the needs.  Rejecting an idea out of hand and discouraging
people from contributing seems counter-productive just because it is the way
most people do it.

In this case, if you use properties to control behavior, it doesn't have to
be either/or. I've spent three or four months now learning Ofbiz and a month
writing code for it.  I have contracts now for three years of work based on
it.  What I write will not be suitable for everyone, but it will be useful
to many.  I can take the time and write it so that it is easily customizable
by the devs who listen here or just bang it out for the current customer and
not bother offering it up.

I would perfer to contribute my work back to the community.  I feel a strong
obligation to do so.  However, when I read comments like the above I start
asking myself, "whats the point of doing the extra work when it will not be
accepted?".  Some will say that it can still be found in Jira, but unless
you monitor the Jira religiously, trying to find unaccepted contributions is
painful.

In my view, you could have encourages contributions by saying "If it has
wide appeal and does not break existing users, we can consider it" instead
of "It will most likely be rejected".

Just my opinionated jerk self 2 cents.

Skip



-----Original Message-----
From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:18 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items



Wow, in a friendly mood today aren't we?

Don't be so quick to judge people.

Keep in mind that OFBiz supports companies that don't track inventory
in OFBiz, and currently most companies don't do book keeping in OFBiz.

It doesn't mean it's sloppy or bad or from malicious intent or that
the people who want to do things this way are incompetent, or that
the analysts who designed it or developers who created it are
incompetent.

OFBiz is a collaborative community working together to create a
system that can be used (hopefully without too much customization) in
a wide variety of businesses and a wide variety of requirements for
interactions with other systems and such.

Please try not to undermine that. It is the foundation of this
effort. If you want something done about this, please frame it in
that light.

-David


On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Skip wrote:

> Dave
>
> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are
> folks who
> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like
> that).  So,
> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>
> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>
> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc
> for quick
> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the
> existing
> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better
> bookkeeping /
> automatic ordering.
>
> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the
> counter
> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he
> has to
> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to
> get it
> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for
> him.  Fixing
> the quickship will take care of it.
>
> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
> reluctant to accept it.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>
>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>
> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>
>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>
> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>
>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>
>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>
> It will most likely be rejected.
>
> -David
>
>
>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>
>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Tenerowicz
>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>
>> Office: 303.493.6727
>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>
>
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Wow, in a friendly mood today aren't we?

Don't be so quick to judge people.

Keep in mind that OFBiz supports companies that don't track inventory  
in OFBiz, and currently most companies don't do book keeping in OFBiz.

It doesn't mean it's sloppy or bad or from malicious intent or that  
the people who want to do things this way are incompetent, or that  
the analysts who designed it or developers who created it are  
incompetent.

OFBiz is a collaborative community working together to create a  
system that can be used (hopefully without too much customization) in  
a wide variety of businesses and a wide variety of requirements for  
interactions with other systems and such.

Please try not to undermine that. It is the foundation of this  
effort. If you want something done about this, please frame it in  
that light.

-David


On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Skip wrote:

> Dave
>
> I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are  
> folks who
> don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like  
> that).  So,
> perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:
>
> ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)
>
> However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
> requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc  
> for quick
> ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the  
> existing
> service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better  
> bookkeeping /
> automatic ordering.
>
> This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the  
> counter
> and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he  
> has to
> exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to  
> get it
> all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for  
> him.  Fixing
> the quickship will take care of it.
>
> Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
> reluctant to accept it.
>
> Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>
>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
>> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
>> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
>> that the system "knew" was not available?
>
> For some users the system doesn't know everything...
>
>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
>> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
>> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
>> leaving an audit trail etc.
>
> Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.
>
>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>
>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>
> It will most likely be rejected.
>
> -David
>
>
>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>
>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>>> of it's processing.
>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Tenerowicz
>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>
>> Office: 303.493.6727
>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>
>
>

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

[Skip <sk...@thedevers.org>]

Dave

I agree that this is a big hole/bug.  On the other hand, there are folks who
don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like that).  So,
perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like:

ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false  (tongue in cheek)

However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done.  I want
requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc for quick
ship.  I was just about to start work on this.  We could modify the existing
service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better bookkeeping /
automatic ordering.

This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the counter
and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he has to
exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to get it
all done right.  It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for him.  Fixing
the quickship will take care of it.

Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so
reluctant to accept it.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: David E Jones [mailto:jonesde@hotwaxmedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items



On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:

> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP
> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user
> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product
> that the system "knew" was not available?

For some users the system doesn't know everything...

> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm
> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it
> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,
> leaving an audit trail etc.

Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.

> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>
> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.

It will most likely be rejected.

-David


> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>> Thank you!
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>
>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part
>>>> of it's processing.
>>>> -Dave
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates
>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the
>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was
>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is
>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>
>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>
>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Dave Tenerowicz
> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>
> Office: 303.493.6727
> Mobile 303.906.6116
> Fax 303.814.8330
>
> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/
> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:

> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP  
> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user  
> to charge a customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product  
> that the system "knew" was not available?

For some users the system doesn't know everything...

> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm  
> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it  
> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,  
> leaving an audit trail etc.

Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way.

> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>
> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.

It will most likely be rejected.

-David


> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>> Thank you!
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>
>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to  
>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part  
>>>> of it's processing.
>>>> -Dave
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates  
>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the  
>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was  
>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock  
>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is  
>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ 
>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>
>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>
>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ 
>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Dave Tenerowicz
> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>
> Office: 303.493.6727
> Mobile 303.906.6116
> Fax 303.814.8330
>
> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ 
> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>

Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for out of stock items)

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

On Oct 25, 2007, at 12:13 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> > Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd
> > probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week,
> > 30 of which spent on politic-ing. ;)
>
> We (Singaporeans) would like to believe that we are productive,  
> constructive. ;)
>
> Seriously speaking, Singaporean policies and systems have been  
> quite efficient. Very little politicking. We have good men and  
> women in management. But yes, we average citizens still complain  
> that we're not getting enough freedom of movement (and speech) to  
> exercise our capitalistic ingenuity (not that we actually succeed  
> when we venture out to Taiwan, China) and our creative streaks.
>
> The few instances of corruption (like the NKF, charitable  
> organization, saga) are exceptions. Police or official corruption  
> is dealt with severely. I think the basic idea is "a hard rod to  
> maintain strict accountability".
>
> But I do agree we somehow fall behind places like San Fran in terms  
> of being a brain magnet. Singapore has made concessions, possibly  
> attempting to make life here more "colorful", such as by building a  
> casino (our first!). This country has strict code of morals (not  
> that we all follow them all, but they do influence us some). We  
> have no adult superstores here (last I saw).

Yeah, it's probably cleaner than San Francisco (not the cleanest  
city ;), though not bad).

Totalitarian societies are certainly efficient, history is full of  
that, but not much fun, and not always that just (turn up the knob  
too high on anything non-deterministic and you'll get lots of false  
positives). I can only stand being productive for so many hours each  
day.

> Please do come here. :) We need all the brains we can get.
>
> The whole country is as squeaky clean as downtown in San Fran, or  
> more so. As for pretty sceneries... we have... tall pretty  
> buildings. :P Oh well.

I'd be happy to visit sometime should the opportunity present itself.  
Most of my travel has historically been for business, though this  
year I've dropped from about 3-4 months of travel per year to about  
3-4 weeks (and most of that within a couple of hours from here...).

> > It's all about collaboration and I don't think top-down management
> > is very healthy for that. I see myself as more of a moderator, just
> > trying to keep things flowing in a reasonable direction and raising
> > red flags when things seem to stray from that (not that I'm always
> > right when I do!).
>
> Ok, then I suppose you like biting your nails and pulling out your  
> hair quite a bit. :) Always a trade-off between "ease of control"  
> and "proliferation of ideas".

Yes, I suppose that's the point. Fortunately I have not commitments  
to hit with OFBiz itself, so it can be frustrating to see certain  
things happen, but not really all that stressful. People will do what  
they do, but that's part of the beauty.

I'd take working on an open source project for free over paid work  
any day though, WAY for more fun and less stressful (of course doing  
what you want instead of what someone else wants often is, especially  
when that other person wanting isn't being very nice).

> Good luck handling us humans! I think I'd rather deal with  
> computers and all their bugs.

Well, if any computer has a bug it is a human's fault. They are  
deterministic after all (except for hardware problems!). It is nice  
though that because of the determinism any bug can be discovered  
(sometimes more effort is required than one would like though...).  
Still, the other side is that everything that exists was designed by  
a human, nothing is "natural", it is ALL contrived and just piles  
upon piles of definitions.

-David


> David E Jones wrote:
>> You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon?
>> Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd  
>> probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week,  
>> 30 of which spent on politic-ing. ;)
>> Sometimes it would be nice if my involvement in OFBiz was as a  
>> "manager" or a "dictator", even if a benign or benevolent one, but  
>> that's really not what this open source project is all about  
>> (some, mostly commercial driven ones, are a bit more  
>> totalitarian). It's all about collaboration and I don't think top- 
>> down management is very healthy for that. I see myself as more of  
>> a moderator, just trying to keep things flowing in a reasonable  
>> direction and raising red flags when things seem to stray from  
>> that (not that I'm always right when I do!).
>> This is one of the reasons why there isn't really an end goal or  
>> project plan as there should always be for a traditional  
>> organization or product. There has been some discussion about a  
>> road map, which I do think would be valuable for all, but not as a  
>> top-down management sort of thing, more as a chance for people to  
>> collaborate more effectively by communicating what we'd all like  
>> to see in the near and distant future for the project.
>> -David
>> On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>> Haha! Hahaha!! Skip, yeah, you're right. I live in a country so  
>>> focused on efficiency, we may actually have some kind of formula  
>>> for lawmaker to citizen ratio! We also control the number of  
>>> varsity graduates to exactly match market demands.
>>>
>>> With efficiency lessons etched so hard into our skulls, I feel  
>>> for David Jones as he tries to manage a world-wide (and  
>>> tremendously varied) pool of contributors and contributions. My  
>>> country is a socialist republic. Maybe David would be happy here.  
>>> The phrase "benign dictator" sounds like such an oxymoron (how to  
>>> achieve?). But that seems to be what works, from history's lessons.
>>>
>>> I don't think my government would consider "having more laws (or  
>>> lawmakers) than there are citizens to follow them laws". Hmm.  
>>> Curious.
>>>
>>> Jonathon
>>>
>>> skip@theDevers wrote:
>>>> "So many people, so few lawmakers."  Gads Jonathon, you  
>>>> obviously don't live
>>>> in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :)
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM
>>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>>> Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate  
>>>> (or largely
>>>> missing) parts in
>>>> OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world,  
>>>> maybe).
>>>> But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in  
>>>> on it), and
>>>> just one soup (OFBiz,
>>>> framework, foundation functionalities).
>>>> I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to  
>>>> prevent cyclists
>>>> from cycling on
>>>> pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they  
>>>> realized
>>>> that not everyone cycles
>>>> at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on  
>>>> the roadsides
>>>> can be terribly scary
>>>> for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to  
>>>> make a law
>>>> that fines me for
>>>> cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few  
>>>> lawmakers.
>>>> Jonathon
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP  
>>>>> system to
>>>>> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to  
>>>>> charge a
>>>>> customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product that the  
>>>>> system
>>>>> "knew" was not available?
>>>>>
>>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to  
>>>>> confirm that
>>>>> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it  
>>>>> would
>>>>> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,  
>>>>> leaving an
>>>>> audit trail etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as  
>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>> it's processing.
>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates  
>>>>>>>>> shipments,
>>>>>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or  
>>>>>>>>> packing
>>>>>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to  
>>>>>>>>> automatically do
>>>>>>>>> it somehow).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing  
>>>>>>>>>> this is due
>>>>>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp? 
>>>> nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
>>>> es
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp? 
>>>> nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
>>>> es
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>> ------
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
>>>> 10/24/2007 2:31 PM
>>>
>

Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for out of stock items)

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Careful, this might degrade into a "where to find adult stores in the  
USA" topic...

Actually, the world not always as it would seem or as many would like  
it to be. I live in one of the more conservative (not really  
totalitarian, but frequently intolerant) states, namely Utah, and  
such things even exist here... though I'm sure not to the extent of  
other places in the USA, like San Francisco.

It's not a bad comparison in general. Governance is governance. While  
we want to keep things "clean" in OFBiz, I think we also want to be  
very tolerant. This is often wise, just in case one finds out one was  
wrong or had limited vision and failed to see the "big picture". Of  
course, in OFBiz it's not a moral issue but an issue of what some  
call "best practices" or "business process purity". Some such things  
certainly exist, but they are hard to define in terms of the  
innumerable varieties of business structures and processes that are  
perfectly legal and valid.

-David


On Oct 25, 2007, at 3:09 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> Oh, good to know! But I saw some in Arizona too. Definitely Nevada.  
> Maybe not Oregon or mid west.
>
> Jonathon
>
> skip@theDevers wrote:
>> "adult superstores".  Only in San Fran.  Come to most places in  
>> the U.S. and
>> they would be burned inside of 10 days of opening.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:14 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments  
>> made for
>> out of stock items)
>>  > You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon?
>> Yup.
>

Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for out of stock items)

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Oh, good to know! But I saw some in Arizona too. Definitely Nevada. Maybe not Oregon or mid west.

Jonathon

skip@theDevers wrote:
> "adult superstores".  Only in San Fran.  Come to most places in the U.S. and
> they would be burned inside of 10 days of opening.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:14 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for
> out of stock items)
> 
> 
>  > You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon?
> 
> Yup.
> 
> 
> 

RE: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for out of stock items)

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

"adult superstores".  Only in San Fran.  Come to most places in the U.S. and
they would be burned inside of 10 days of opening.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:14 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for
out of stock items)


 > You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon?

Yup.

Re: Management style for OFBiz project (was shipments made for out of stock items)

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

 > You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon?

Yup.

 > Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd
 > probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week,
 > 30 of which spent on politic-ing. ;)

We (Singaporeans) would like to believe that we are productive, constructive. ;)

Seriously speaking, Singaporean policies and systems have been quite efficient. Very little 
politicking. We have good men and women in management. But yes, we average citizens still complain 
that we're not getting enough freedom of movement (and speech) to exercise our capitalistic 
ingenuity (not that we actually succeed when we venture out to Taiwan, China) and our creative 
streaks.

The few instances of corruption (like the NKF, charitable organization, saga) are exceptions. 
Police or official corruption is dealt with severely. I think the basic idea is "a hard rod to 
maintain strict accountability".

But I do agree we somehow fall behind places like San Fran in terms of being a brain magnet. 
Singapore has made concessions, possibly attempting to make life here more "colorful", such as by 
building a casino (our first!). This country has strict code of morals (not that we all follow 
them all, but they do influence us some). We have no adult superstores here (last I saw).

Please do come here. :) We need all the brains we can get.

The whole country is as squeaky clean as downtown in San Fran, or more so. As for pretty 
sceneries... we have... tall pretty buildings. :P Oh well.

 > It's all about collaboration and I don't think top-down management
 > is very healthy for that. I see myself as more of a moderator, just
 > trying to keep things flowing in a reasonable direction and raising
 > red flags when things seem to stray from that (not that I'm always
 > right when I do!).

Ok, then I suppose you like biting your nails and pulling out your hair quite a bit. :) Always a 
trade-off between "ease of control" and "proliferation of ideas".

Good luck handling us humans! I think I'd rather deal with computers and all their bugs.

Jonathon

David E Jones wrote:
> 
> You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon?
> 
> Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd 
> probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week, 30 of 
> which spent on politic-ing. ;)
> 
> Sometimes it would be nice if my involvement in OFBiz was as a "manager" 
> or a "dictator", even if a benign or benevolent one, but that's really 
> not what this open source project is all about (some, mostly commercial 
> driven ones, are a bit more totalitarian). It's all about collaboration 
> and I don't think top-down management is very healthy for that. I see 
> myself as more of a moderator, just trying to keep things flowing in a 
> reasonable direction and raising red flags when things seem to stray 
> from that (not that I'm always right when I do!).
> 
> This is one of the reasons why there isn't really an end goal or project 
> plan as there should always be for a traditional organization or 
> product. There has been some discussion about a road map, which I do 
> think would be valuable for all, but not as a top-down management sort 
> of thing, more as a chance for people to collaborate more effectively by 
> communicating what we'd all like to see in the near and distant future 
> for the project.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> 
>> Haha! Hahaha!! Skip, yeah, you're right. I live in a country so 
>> focused on efficiency, we may actually have some kind of formula for 
>> lawmaker to citizen ratio! We also control the number of varsity 
>> graduates to exactly match market demands.
>>
>> With efficiency lessons etched so hard into our skulls, I feel for 
>> David Jones as he tries to manage a world-wide (and tremendously 
>> varied) pool of contributors and contributions. My country is a 
>> socialist republic. Maybe David would be happy here. The phrase 
>> "benign dictator" sounds like such an oxymoron (how to achieve?). But 
>> that seems to be what works, from history's lessons.
>>
>> I don't think my government would consider "having more laws (or 
>> lawmakers) than there are citizens to follow them laws". Hmm. Curious.
>>
>> Jonathon
>>
>> skip@theDevers wrote:
>>> "So many people, so few lawmakers."  Gads Jonathon, you obviously 
>>> don't live
>>> in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :)
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>>> Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate (or 
>>> largely
>>> missing) parts in
>>> OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, maybe).
>>> But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in on 
>>> it), and
>>> just one soup (OFBiz,
>>> framework, foundation functionalities).
>>> I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to prevent 
>>> cyclists
>>> from cycling on
>>> pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they 
>>> realized
>>> that not everyone cycles
>>> at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on the 
>>> roadsides
>>> can be terribly scary
>>> for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to make 
>>> a law
>>> that fines me for
>>> cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few 
>>> lawmakers.
>>> Jonathon
>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP 
>>>> system to
>>>> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to charge a
>>>> customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product that the system
>>>> "knew" was not available?
>>>>
>>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm that
>>>> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would
>>>> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, leaving an
>>>> audit trail etc.
>>>>
>>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of
>>>>>>> it's processing.
>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments,
>>>>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing
>>>>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do
>>>>>>>> it somehow).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due
>>>>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic 
>>>
>>> es
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic 
>>>
>>> es
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
>>> 10/24/2007 2:31 PM
>>
> 

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

You're in Singapore, am I remembering that right Jonathon?

Not sure if I'd be so happy there... If I liked lots of rules I'd  
probably work for a large corporation and stick to a 40 hour week, 30  
of which spent on politic-ing. ;)

Sometimes it would be nice if my involvement in OFBiz was as a  
"manager" or a "dictator", even if a benign or benevolent one, but  
that's really not what this open source project is all about (some,  
mostly commercial driven ones, are a bit more totalitarian). It's all  
about collaboration and I don't think top-down management is very  
healthy for that. I see myself as more of a moderator, just trying to  
keep things flowing in a reasonable direction and raising red flags  
when things seem to stray from that (not that I'm always right when I  
do!).

This is one of the reasons why there isn't really an end goal or  
project plan as there should always be for a traditional organization  
or product. There has been some discussion about a road map, which I  
do think would be valuable for all, but not as a top-down management  
sort of thing, more as a chance for people to collaborate more  
effectively by communicating what we'd all like to see in the near  
and distant future for the project.

-David


On Oct 24, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> Haha! Hahaha!! Skip, yeah, you're right. I live in a country so  
> focused on efficiency, we may actually have some kind of formula  
> for lawmaker to citizen ratio! We also control the number of  
> varsity graduates to exactly match market demands.
>
> With efficiency lessons etched so hard into our skulls, I feel for  
> David Jones as he tries to manage a world-wide (and tremendously  
> varied) pool of contributors and contributions. My country is a  
> socialist republic. Maybe David would be happy here. The phrase  
> "benign dictator" sounds like such an oxymoron (how to achieve?).  
> But that seems to be what works, from history's lessons.
>
> I don't think my government would consider "having more laws (or  
> lawmakers) than there are citizens to follow them laws". Hmm. Curious.
>
> Jonathon
>
> skip@theDevers wrote:
>> "So many people, so few lawmakers."  Gads Jonathon, you obviously  
>> don't live
>> in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
>> Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate  
>> (or largely
>> missing) parts in
>> OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, maybe).
>> But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in on  
>> it), and
>> just one soup (OFBiz,
>> framework, foundation functionalities).
>> I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to prevent  
>> cyclists
>> from cycling on
>> pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they  
>> realized
>> that not everyone cycles
>> at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on the  
>> roadsides
>> can be terribly scary
>> for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to  
>> make a law
>> that fines me for
>> cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few  
>> lawmakers.
>> Jonathon
>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP  
>>> system to
>>> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to  
>>> charge a
>>> customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product that the system
>>> "knew" was not available?
>>>
>>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm  
>>> that
>>> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would
>>> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory,  
>>> leaving an
>>> audit trail etc.
>>>
>>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>>
>>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>>
>>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as  
>>>>>> part of
>>>>>> it's processing.
>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates  
>>>>>>> shipments,
>>>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or  
>>>>>>> packing
>>>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to  
>>>>>>> automatically do
>>>>>>> it somehow).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this  
>>>>>>>> is due
>>>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>>>>
>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp? 
>> nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
>> es
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>>
>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp? 
>> nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
>> es
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> ----
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
>> 10/24/2007 2:31 PM
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Haha! Hahaha!! Skip, yeah, you're right. I live in a country so focused on efficiency, we may 
actually have some kind of formula for lawmaker to citizen ratio! We also control the number of 
varsity graduates to exactly match market demands.

With efficiency lessons etched so hard into our skulls, I feel for David Jones as he tries to 
manage a world-wide (and tremendously varied) pool of contributors and contributions. My country 
is a socialist republic. Maybe David would be happy here. The phrase "benign dictator" sounds like 
such an oxymoron (how to achieve?). But that seems to be what works, from history's lessons.

I don't think my government would consider "having more laws (or lawmakers) than there are 
citizens to follow them laws". Hmm. Curious.

Jonathon

skip@theDevers wrote:
> "So many people, so few lawmakers."  Gads Jonathon, you obviously don't live
> in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items
> 
> 
> Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate (or largely
> missing) parts in
> OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, maybe).
> 
> But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in on it), and
> just one soup (OFBiz,
> framework, foundation functionalities).
> 
> I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to prevent cyclists
> from cycling on
> pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they realized
> that not everyone cycles
> at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on the roadsides
> can be terribly scary
> for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to make a law
> that fines me for
> cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few lawmakers.
> 
> Jonathon
> 
> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP system to
>> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to charge a
>> customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product that the system
>> "knew" was not available?
>>
>> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm that
>> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would
>> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, leaving an
>> audit trail etc.
>>
>> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>>
>> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>>
>>
>> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>>
>>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of
>>>>> it's processing.
>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments,
>>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing
>>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do
>>>>>> it somehow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due
>>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>>>
> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
> es
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>
> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
> es
>>>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
> 10/24/2007 2:31 PM
> 
> 
> 

RE: shipments made for out of stock items

["skip@theDevers" <sk...@thedevers.org>]

"So many people, so few lawmakers."  Gads Jonathon, you obviously don't live
in the U.S where there are two lawmakers for every citizen! :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:jonw@improov.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:52 PM
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items


Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate (or largely
missing) parts in
OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, maybe).

But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in on it), and
just one soup (OFBiz,
framework, foundation functionalities).

I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to prevent cyclists
from cycling on
pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they realized
that not everyone cycles
at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on the roadsides
can be terribly scary
for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to make a law
that fines me for
cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few lawmakers.

Jonathon

Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP system to
> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to charge a
> customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product that the system
> "knew" was not available?
>
> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm that
> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would
> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, leaving an
> audit trail etc.
>
> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
>
> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
>
>
> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>> Thank you!
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>
>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to
>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of
>>>> it's processing.
>>>> -Dave
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments,
>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing
>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do
>>>>> it somehow).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock
>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due
>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>>>
http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
es
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>
>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>
>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>> For ERP Information:
>>>>
http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServic
es
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
10/24/2007 2:31 PM

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Certainly inappropriate. There are also many other inappropriate (or largely missing) parts in 
OFBiz, like EFT handling (different in my part of the world, maybe).

But we have to consider that we have many cooks (we all want in on it), and just one soup (OFBiz, 
framework, foundation functionalities).

I always did wonder why my government doesn't make laws to prevent cyclists from cycling on 
pedestrian pavements/paths. Well, they did, once. But then, they realized that not everyone cycles 
at breakneck speeds like me. :) And cycling at crawl speeds on the roadsides can be terribly scary 
for most folks. So they removed the law. Yeah, they may need to make a law that fines me for 
cycling on pedestrian paths, just me. :P So many people, so few lawmakers.

Jonathon

Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP system to 
> allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to charge a 
> customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product that the system 
> "knew" was not available?
> 
> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm that 
> the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would 
> take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, leaving an 
> audit trail etc.
> 
> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.
> 
> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.
> 
> 
> Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>> Thank you!
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there ya go!
>>>
>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to 
>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of 
>>>> it's processing.
>>>> -Dave
>>>>
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments, 
>>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing 
>>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do 
>>>>> it somehow).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock 
>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due 
>>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>>> For ERP Information: 
>>>>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>
>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>
>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>> For ERP Information: 
>>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 10/24/2007 2:31 PM

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Dave Tenerowicz <dt...@salmonllc.com>]

The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP system to 
allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user to charge a 
customers credit card  and "ship" a physical product that the system 
"knew" was not available?

Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm that 
the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it would 
take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, leaving an 
audit trail etc.

To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed.

I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix.


Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> Well, there ya go!
>>
>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to 
>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of 
>>> it's processing.
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>>
>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments, 
>>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing 
>>>> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do 
>>>> it somehow).
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock 
>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due 
>>>>> to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>>> rev =  545314
>>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>>
>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>>> For ERP Information: 
>>>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>
>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>
>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>> For ERP Information: 
>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices 
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com

Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330

Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Dave Tenerowicz <dt...@salmonllc.com>]

Thank you!

David E Jones wrote:
>
> Well, there ya go!
>
> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...
>
> -David
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>
>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to 
>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of 
>> it's processing.
>> -Dave
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>>
>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments, 
>>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing 
>>> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do 
>>> it somehow).
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock items 
>>>> in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due to 
>>>> product store settings, not a code issue.
>>>> rev =  545314
>>>> check inventory=Y
>>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>>> require inventory=N
>>>>
>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>>
>>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>>
>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>>> For ERP Information: 
>>>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dave Tenerowicz
>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>
>> Office: 303.493.6727
>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>> For ERP Information: 
>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices 
>>
>>
>

-- 
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com

Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330

Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

Well, there ya go!

The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels...

-David


On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:

> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to  
> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of  
> it's processing.
> -Dave
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> What do you mean by "being created"?
>>
>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments,  
>> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or  
>> packing screens (or a service or something was written to  
>> automatically do it somehow).
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>>
>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock  
>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is  
>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue.
>>> rev =  545314
>>> check inventory=Y
>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>> require inventory=N
>>>
>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>
>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dave Tenerowicz
>>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>>
>>> Office: 303.493.6727
>>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>>
>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ 
>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Dave Tenerowicz
> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>
> Office: 303.493.6727
> Mobile 303.906.6116
> Fax 303.814.8330
>
> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ 
> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Dave Tenerowicz <dt...@salmonllc.com>]

Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to 
automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part of it's 
processing.
-Dave

David E Jones wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "being created"?
>
> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments, 
> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing 
> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do it 
> somehow).
>
> -David
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
>
>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock items 
>> in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due to 
>> product store settings, not a code issue.
>> rev =  545314
>> check inventory=Y
>> reserve inventory=Y
>> require inventory=N
>>
>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>> -- 
>> Dave Tenerowicz
>> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>>
>> Office: 303.493.6727
>> Mobile 303.906.6116
>> Fax 303.814.8330
>>
>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
>> For ERP Information: 
>> http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices 
>>
>>
>

-- 
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com

Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330

Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>]

"Quick ship entire order" ?

Jacques

De : "David E Jones" <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> 
> What do you mean by "being created"?
> 
> There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments,  
> unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing  
> screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do it  
> somehow).
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:
> 
> > It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock items  
> > in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due to  
> > product store settings, not a code issue.
> > rev =  545314
> > check inventory=Y
> > reserve inventory=Y
> > require inventory=N
> >
> > All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
> >
> > Thanks for any help.
> >
> > -- 
> > Dave Tenerowicz
> > dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
> >
> > Office: 303.493.6727
> > Mobile 303.906.6116
> > Fax 303.814.8330
> >
> > Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
> > For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ 
> > ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
> >
> 
> 

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>]

What do you mean by "being created"?

There isn't really anything that automatically creates shipments,  
unless a human does it through some UI like the shipment or packing  
screens (or a service or something was written to automatically do it  
somehow).

-David


On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote:

> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock items  
> in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due to  
> product store settings, not a code issue.
> rev =  545314
> check inventory=Y
> reserve inventory=Y
> require inventory=N
>
> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> -- 
> Dave Tenerowicz
> dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com
>
> Office: 303.493.6727
> Mobile 303.906.6116
> Fax 303.814.8330
>
> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ 
> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices
>

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

I was taking this from code.
reservations is not connected to inventory directly
take a look at facility_service.xml
reserveProductInventory
If requireInventory is Y the quantity not reserved is returned, if N
then a negative
            availableToPromise will be used to track quantity ordered
beyond what is in stock.

Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 10/23/2007 2:55 PM:
> Thanks BJ.
> However, I'm not sure this is the case. With the settings below, it
> appears that reservation occurs - I see ATP values decrease as orders
> are created.
> -Dave
> 
> BJ Freeman wrote:
>> believe the logic is, if you don't require inventory, there is not check
>>  of or reserve of.
>> require inventory is mutually exclusive from require inventory.
>> see
>> isStoreInventoryRequiredAndAvailable
>> there is also
>>  isStoreInventoryAvailable
>>
>> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 10/22/2007 2:48 PM:
>>  
>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock items in
>>> an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due to product
>>> store settings, not a code issue.
>>> rev =  545314
>>> check inventory=Y
>>> reserve inventory=Y
>>> require inventory=N
>>>
>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>>
>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>
>>   
> 

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

[Dave Tenerowicz <dt...@salmonllc.com>]

Thanks BJ.
However, I'm not sure this is the case. With the settings below, it 
appears that reservation occurs - I see ATP values decrease as orders 
are created.
-Dave

BJ Freeman wrote:
> believe the logic is, if you don't require inventory, there is not check
>  of or reserve of.
> require inventory is mutually exclusive from require inventory.
> see
> isStoreInventoryRequiredAndAvailable
> there is also
>  isStoreInventoryAvailable
>
> Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 10/22/2007 2:48 PM:
>   
>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock items in
>> an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due to product
>> store settings, not a code issue.
>> rev =  545314
>> check inventory=Y
>> reserve inventory=Y
>> require inventory=N
>>
>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>>     
>
>
>   

-- 
Dave Tenerowicz
dtenerowicz@salmonllc.com

Office: 303.493.6727
Mobile 303.906.6116
Fax 303.814.8330

Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com
For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices

Re: shipments made for out of stock items

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

believe the logic is, if you don't require inventory, there is not check
 of or reserve of.
require inventory is mutually exclusive from require inventory.
see
isStoreInventoryRequiredAndAvailable
there is also
 isStoreInventoryAvailable

Dave Tenerowicz sent the following on 10/22/2007 2:48 PM:
> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock items in
> an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is due to product
> store settings, not a code issue.
> rev =  545314
> check inventory=Y
> reserve inventory=Y
> require inventory=N
> 
> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual)
> 
> Thanks for any help.
>