You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by "Iain Fogg (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2007/07/10 08:38:04 UTC
[jira] Created: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null search
parameters
Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
------------------------------------------------
Key: OFBIZ-1134
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
Project: OFBiz
Issue Type: Bug
Components: order
Affects Versions: SVN trunk
Reporter: Iain Fogg
Fix For: SVN trunk
Prelude:
To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
Assumption:
+ Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
Scenario:
+ In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
+ By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
+ Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
+ Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
Posted by "Iain Fogg (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511377 ]
Iain Fogg commented on OFBIZ-1134:
----------------------------------
Jacopo,
I have to admit that I've only looked very briefly at MRP. Is there some
decent docs on this capability?
For our needs, the "old" requirement method works well enough. One
advantage of the old requirement methods was that we could easily
distinguish requirements that were a consequence of a customer order
versus those that were a result of re-stocking. The former always had
the facilityId, whereas the latter had a null facilityId. This is
actually pretty important, because if we are re-stocking we can often
leave the PO until we have an economic quantity, but when we need to
fulfil a customer order we usually have to take proactive measures to
source the item for the customer in a timely manner.
I'm interested to know if MRP and/or the "new" requirements methods have
some easy mechanism for us to distinguish customer orders vs reorders?
Cheers, Iain
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/891 - Release Date: 8/07/2007 6:32 PM
> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-1134
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: order
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Reporter: Iain Fogg
> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
> Fix For: SVN trunk
>
>
> Prelude:
> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
> Assumption:
> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
> Scenario:
> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Assigned: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null search
parameters
Posted by "Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Jacopo Cappellato reassigned OFBIZ-1134:
----------------------------------------
Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-1134
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: order
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Reporter: Iain Fogg
> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
> Fix For: SVN trunk
>
>
> Prelude:
> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
> Assumption:
> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
> Scenario:
> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Closed: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null search
parameters
Posted by "Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Jacopo Cappellato closed OFBIZ-1134.
------------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Iain,
I think that we can close the issue now: for that screen the facility id is mandatory because it is used to quickly create a purchase order from a list of requirements; and so we have to use requirements for a specific facility.
> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-1134
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: order
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Reporter: Iain Fogg
> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
> Fix For: SVN trunk
>
>
> Prelude:
> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
> Assumption:
> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
> Scenario:
> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
Posted by "Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511710 ]
Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1134:
------------------------------------------
Iain,
we should probably move this thread to the user list.
You can easily distinguish requirements associated to order item from the existence of the record in OrderRequirementCommitment entity.
All the requirements created by MRP are for re-stocking (even if they are influenced by outsanding sales/purchase/manufacturing orders) and not for a specific order.
Jacopo
> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-1134
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: order
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Reporter: Iain Fogg
> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
> Fix For: SVN trunk
>
>
> Prelude:
> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
> Assumption:
> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
> Scenario:
> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: [jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
Yes,
but if you are using one warehouse (e.g. "WebStoreWarehouse") the
statement is very simple:
update REQUIREMENT set FACILITY_ID = 'WebStoreWarehouse' where
FACILITY_ID is null and REQUIREMENT_TYPE_ID = 'PRODUCT_REQUIREMENT'
You can eneter the sql command in the Webtools-->Entity SQL Processor
(after a backup!)
Jacopo
iain wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> This seems pretty reasonable. I'm currently testing r552815. I'll have
> to knock up a query to set the facilityId for those existing
> requirements with a null value (I need to handle the migration for a
> production DB).
>
> Cheers, Iain
>
> Will
> Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA) wrote:
>> [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511360
>> ]
>> Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1134:
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> Iain,
>>
>> in rev. 554878 I've modified the requirement creation services to
>> always fill the facilityId with the facility for which the requirement
>> is intended for.
>> This should solve your problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Key: OFBIZ-1134
>>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
>>> Project: OFBiz
>>> Issue Type: Bug
>>> Components: order
>>> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
>>> Reporter: Iain Fogg
>>> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
>>> Fix For: SVN trunk
>>>
>>>
>>> Prelude:
>>> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition.
>>> In
>>> applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml
>>> to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing
>>> <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
>>> Assumption:
>>> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a
>>> value for facilityId.
>>> Scenario:
>>> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and
>>> select "Approved Product Requirements".
>>> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays
>>> all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
>>> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a
>>> facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the
>>> lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId,
>>> do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than
>>> supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
>>> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get
>>> the full list of approved requirements.
>>> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty
>>> facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing
>>> something else when a Supplier is selected.
>>> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a
>>> production database that include requirements that may or may not
>>> have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots
>>> of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being
>>> generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if
>>> that is important but thought I'd mention it).
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
Posted by iain <ia...@westnet.com.au>.
Hi Jacopo,
This seems pretty reasonable. I'm currently testing r552815. I'll have
to knock up a query to set the facilityId for those existing
requirements with a null value (I need to handle the migration for a
production DB).
Cheers, Iain
Will
Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA) wrote:
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511360 ]
>
> Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1134:
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Iain,
>
> in rev. 554878 I've modified the requirement creation services to always fill the facilityId with the facility for which the requirement is intended for.
> This should solve your problem.
>
>
>
>> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Key: OFBIZ-1134
>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
>> Project: OFBiz
>> Issue Type: Bug
>> Components: order
>> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
>> Reporter: Iain Fogg
>> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
>> Fix For: SVN trunk
>>
>>
>> Prelude:
>> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
>> Assumption:
>> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
>> Scenario:
>> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
>> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
>> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
>> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
>> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
>> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
>>
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/891 - Release Date: 8/07/2007 6:32 PM
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
Posted by "Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511360 ]
Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1134:
------------------------------------------
Iain,
in rev. 554878 I've modified the requirement creation services to always fill the facilityId with the facility for which the requirement is intended for.
This should solve your problem.
> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-1134
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: order
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Reporter: Iain Fogg
> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
> Fix For: SVN trunk
>
>
> Prelude:
> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
> Assumption:
> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
> Scenario:
> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1134) Inconsistent treatment of null
search parameters
Posted by "Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12511361 ]
Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1134:
------------------------------------------
Iain,
just out of curiosity: what kind of requirement method are you using? Is it working well? Have you ever considered to use the MRP instead?
> Inconsistent treatment of null search parameters
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-1134
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1134
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: order
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Reporter: Iain Fogg
> Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato
> Fix For: SVN trunk
>
>
> Prelude:
> To easily observe this problem, you need to modify a form definition. In applications/order/webapp/ordermgr/requirement/RequirementForms.xml to allow the facilityId field to accept an empty value by changing <drop-down allow-empty="true">.
> Assumption:
> + Your list of approved requirements include some with and without a value for facilityId.
> Scenario:
> + In the OrderMgr application, go to the "Requirements" screen and select "Approved Product Requirements".
> + By default, the Supplier field will be empty, and the form displays all requirements for all suppliers, irrespective of facilityId.
> + Select a Supplier (preferrably one with some requirements with a facilityId and some without), leave the facilityId empty, do the lookup, and the result is an empty list. Select a valid facilityId, do the lookup, and it returns the list of requirements for than supplier that have the relevant facilityId.
> + Clear the facilityId AND the Supplier, do the lookup, and you get the full list of approved requirements.
> For some reason, the application correctly interprets an empty facilityId as DON'T CARE when there Supplier is empty, but is doing something else when a Supplier is selected.
> Note: I observe this problem because I am testing on a snapshot of a production database that include requirements that may or may not have the facilityId field populated. In fact, the reason I have lots of requirements without a facilityId is because these are being generated by the Requirement Method Enum related secas. (Not sure if that is important but thought I'd mention it).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.