Thank you, Gil, for referencing various pre-cursors to this discussion. As some may experience a case of TLDR given the lenghty threads in your listing of references, I will try to clarify the issue within its context.
*** Does a user experience one or more issues with the 'remove' functionality regarding the PartyRole entity? *** Yes, they do. The user experiences an error message when he/she/they removes (meaning delete) an PartyRole in either the party component or in webtools. This should be undesirable from the project's perspective. Hence Jacques remark in [1]. *** What is the root-cause of this issue? *** This is two-fold: 1. functional: because in various Party and Role setting forms ( in various applications other than party and webtools) there is no limit to which party can be paired to what role. Which is then taken by the ensureParty as parameters and persisted as a PartyRole record. 2. technical: because of the PartyRole being used as a sql foreign key constraint in various other entities, and *** Can the issue regarding the PartyRole be resolved technically? *** It is not impossible, so yes. And preferable, as Jacopo points out, without introducing new bugs. Addressing aspect #1, listed above, will reduce the number of erroneous record going into the PartyRole table. And evaluating each of the entities relating to aspect #2 whether there is an absolute (as in set-in-stone) necessity for having the sql foreign key constraint on PartyRole. When both are addressed, then the risk of introducing enhancements to the PartyRole (and its associated forms, requests and service functions) is minimised. Met vriendelijke groet, Pierre Smits *Contributing to* Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org/> since 2008 (without privileges) Contributing to the ASF since 2006 *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member* On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 11:59 AM Jacopo Cappellato < jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Gil. > > In my opinion the *Role data model and the way OFBiz leverages it and the > *Relationship data model are not ideal (some of the issues have been > mentioned in the various threads referenced by Gil) but I don't feel that > this specific enhancement is relevant enough to justify the risk of > introducing new bugs, issues and regressions. > > Jacopo > > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:07 AM Gil Portenseigne < > gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I'm starting a new thread to discuss with the community about an > > Improvement that has been submitted by Pierre Smits [1] > > This topic has already been discussed in the past [2] and was conclude by > > a lazy consensus not to implement PartyRole lifespan into OFBiz. > > Recently, this improvement was discussed again in Jira [3], and partly > > commited, before being reverted when big blocking side effect where > > discovered. > > A more detailed summary has been made by Jacques here [4]. > > The enhancement is about adding fromDate and thruDate fields onto > > PartyRole entity, modifying its primary key (fromDate) > > The fact is that a such big subject need to be addressed with the > > community consensus, as it is not trivial. > > Please let us know you thoughts about this task and let's decide, if we > > need to organize or if we need to close pending Jira with reference to > this > > discussion ? > > > > Thanks, > > Gil > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5959 > > [2] > > > https://markmail.org/message/pqrmv5vpjgm6iigq#query:+page:1+mid:isaoze65bbciuytc+state:results > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5980 ( > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5980?focusedCommentId=17441274&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17441274 > > ) > > [4] > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5980?focusedCommentId=17441274&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17441274 > > >
