David E Jones wrote:
On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
It appears to me that there is a one-to-one relationship between a
fixed asset maintenance and a work effort to perform the maintenance.
Wouldn't it be better if there was a one-to-many relationship?
Let's say I have a company truck fixed asset. I set up two
maintenances for it: oil change every 5000 miles and tire rotation
every 10000 miles. As I enter odometer readings in the Meter Reading
section, the maintenances should generate oil change and tire rotation
work efforts when the maintenance interval is passed.
If I remember right the intent of the maintenance records is to have one
for each part that must be maintained. In this case there would be one
maintenance for the oil change and another for the tire rotation, even
though they happen at the same intervals.
Sorta like that. Two maintenances, different intervals.
I I understand you right the constraint you are looking at is the
ProductMaint.maintTemplateWorkEffortId field that refers to a single
WorkEffort, and you would like to have more than one WorkEffort
associated with the ProductMaint record. On a side note, the
relationship from ProductMaint to WorkEffort is many-to-one (as opposed
to a one-to-one, meaning they would have the same primary key) because
there can be many ProductMaint records for a single WorkEffort record.
You are proposing to make it a many-to-many relatonship, which means a
join entity to go between them would be needed.
I wasn't referring to the entities - I was referring to the concept. It
looks that way to me based upon how the component operates.
One thing to keep in mind: the way WorkEfforts are designed a single
WorkEffort as a task or whatever can have various sub-WorkEfforts
associated with it.
Then there would have to be code to create sub tasks when intervals are
passed. That seems like unnecessary complication to me, but I'll check
into it.
-Adrian
