No. I linked to what you stated in [1] https://github.com/apache/ofbiz-framework/pull/293
Met vriendelijke groet, Pierre Smits *Proud* *contributor** of* Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org/> since 2008 (without privileges) Proud contributor to the ASF since 2006 *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member* On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 6:42 PM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > Inline... > > Le 13/11/2021 à 14:45, Pierre Smits a écrit : > > 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]. > > As you somehow quoted me (I guess you speak about my 1st comment in > OFBIZ-5959), I want to mention the end of that comment: > > <<This still needs more thoughts and checks on my side...>> > > And my next comment follow comments from other,notably from the late > Adrian: > > <<I think Adrian's argument about PartyRole fks everywhere is serious. > As says Nicolas, this endeavour seems risky. What would be the > alternatives?>> > > I think it's enough to clarify my thoughts at that moment. > > > > *** 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. > > With my recent experience ending by a revert, I tend to agree, we can try > that. But something is unclear to me. What is an "erroneous record going > into the PartyRole table", how to limit them? Before doing anything this > needs to be defined. > > For your second proposition, I think we can remove all FKs going to > PartyRole, using one-nofk in relations for instance, as proposed David. > As Scott wondered (I think he never proposed that) an even more audacious > endeavour would be to remove PartyRole altogether. > > Jacques > > > > > 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 >
