Hi Taher, Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and default to false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and will give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs.
> My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However! the > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the database > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the validation > attributes and how they apply. > Thanks & Regards, Aditya Sharma Enterprise Software Engineer HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd > suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before deciding > how to proceed. > > Regards > Scott > > On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off. > > > > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However! > the > > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the database > > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if > > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the validation > > attributes and how they apply. > > > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma < > > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for "*id*" > or " > > > *id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very > enriching > > > discussion. > > > > > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types- > > td2251546.html > > > > > > As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value. > > > > > > I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I found that > > > almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and > > > *java-type* > > > for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that > > not-empty > > > constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields. > > > > > > I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne" field > > type > > > but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database level. > > > > > > When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate > elements > > > were removed from fieldtype*.xml files. > > > > > > > > > http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708 > > > > > > But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed whether > there > > > was some implementation that took its place for those validations. > > > > > > > > > To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity having a > > > non-primary key "id-ne" field. I found that "*Picklist*" entity has a > > field > > > *shipmentMethodTypeId* as "id- ne" type. When we *create a picklist* > for > > an > > > order from Facility Manager, *shipmentMethodTypeId* can be *empty*. > > > > > > > > > If my explorations are correct currently there is no difference between > > > "id" and "id-ne" at the implementation level and there should be a Jira > > for > > > it. > > > > > > If I missed out something, can someone please enlighten me with that > and > > > help me understanding it well. > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Aditya Sharma > > > Enterprise Software Engineer > > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ > > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> > > > > > >
