Thanks Paul, Gil,
If it was not a so big move, we could even rename all remove into delete, but
forget it ;)
Jacques
Le 24/08/2017 à 09:08, gil portenseigne a écrit :
Hi Paul,
You are right, deleteWorkEffortAndRelated will suit perfectly :)
Thanks for your feedback
Gil
On 24/08/2017 05:38, Paul Foxworthy wrote:
Hi Gil,
Jacques counted 157 services with names starting with "remove" and 538
starting with "delete" . OFBiz is inconsistent here, but "delete" is more
commonly used. Why make it any worse by adding another "remove"?
Thanks
Paul Foxworthy
On 14 August 2017 at 23:50, gil portenseigne <gil.portensei...@nereide.fr>
wrote:
Hi Jacques,
In my opinion when I read deleteWorkEffort i'm expecting an entity-auto
service, that will remove my workEffort entry from database.
In this case it's removing the workEffort and all related entity, so i
propose to rename the service to removeWorkEffortAndRelated.
This service is to be used when i really don't care about related data.
Then we could replace deleteProductionRunRoutingTask with
removeWorkEffortAndRelated service...
The question remains, should we still define a deleteWorkEffort
entity-auto service ? I'm not sure that will be useful, but that's not
costly to have one defined...
Gil
On 11/08/2017 17:21, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi Nicolas, All,
Nicolas: are you speaking about deleteProductionRunRoutingTask
(OFBIZ-9568), deleteWorkEffort (OFBIZ-9185) or both ?
I think you answered only about deleteWorkEffort and then I agree.
I was also reluctant to remove it. But then we need to define what would
be it's minimal implementation.
Because as Deepak said, when you want to delete a workeffort with
relations with other entities (hence FKs); then you need to delete those
other entities before.
And in some case it can be quite hard (I try to generalise from this
case).
I wonder if a new simpler service like deleteSimpleWorkeffort would not
be appropriate. A simple workEffort would not have any relations with any
entities, else the call would be rejected by this new service.
Because generalising seems hard, even more when considering all entities,
like eg OrderHeader
see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/How+
to+delete+tuples+added+to+test+a+setup and also related thread
https://s.apache.org/DCiI
This time I want to get to some action :D
Jacques
Le 11/08/2017 à 11:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
Hello Jacques,
It's a good example why I explained that delete is interesting in some
cases.
We implemented a process with template workeffort where an operator
create a production run from the templating and delete some task that is
not needed before start. In this context, I have no reason to keep these
workeffort on the database.
I'm in favor to keep these services as simple as possible and in
coherence with the create service with information that the delete service
doesn't manage all foreign key and we need prepare the delete before. For
all other case, expire will own friend :)
Nicolas
Le 10/08/2017 à 11:56, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi,
Please give your opinion on OFBIZ-9568 before I continue on OFBIZ-9185
Thanks
Jacques
