It was just a suggestion Hans nothing more. Take it, leave it, ignore it, whatever.
I'm sorry to have exhausted you so. Regards Scott On 29/04/2010, at 1:18 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > we are talking here of adding an optional parameter to store a final end > reason of a customer request, why it was rejected cancelled etc. > > in total adding 4 lines of code. > > if you guys want to discuss this big, please go ahead...you want to > revert it? please go ahead too and causing me to move this code outside > of the trunk. I am too busy and too tired to push this further and > really have better things to do. > > Ok, my last reply on his subject for me too small to discuss. > > Regards, > Hans > > On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 10:24 -0500, Adam Heath wrote: >> Scott Gray wrote: >>> On 28/04/2010, at 11:58 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>> >>>> reason is a field on custRequest so i see no reason to call it >>>> CustRequestStatus. If you feel strong about this, change it. >>>> >>>> I have no time for this nitty gritty stuff..... >>> >>> You really need to get a grip Hans, I was simply suggesting a better way of >>> modeling what it looks like you were trying to achieve. The same pattern >>> is used on WorkEffortStatus for recording the reason of a status change. >>> >>> I understand you don't like me very much, but I really couldn't care less. >>> >>> Regards >>> Scott >> >> Scott looked at Hans' commit. He found it interesting enough to >> actually understand it, and offer a suggestion. This is a good thing. >> It means that he sees that there is a good new feature here. Yay! >> >> However, he then offerred another alternative. It may be better. It >> may be worse. I don't know. Scott probably isn't sure either. But >> it needs to be discussed to see if it is better or worse. >> >> Just responding saying "this is the way it is, I'm not changing it" is >> very antagonistic. Either responding saying "hmm, maybe, let me >> think", or say "I don't think so, here's why". But not even taking >> the criticism(not all criticism is bad, m'kay?) is not the way to make >> people like you. >> >> >>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Hans >>>> >>>> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 23:11 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> Hi Hans, >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it be better to have a CustRequestStatus.reason field for this? >>>>> Using CustRequest.reason doesn't seem right for this situation. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> HotWax Media >>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>> >>>>> On 28/04/2010, at 8:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Author: hansbak >>>>>> Date: Wed Apr 28 08:36:05 2010 >>>>>> New Revision: 938817 >>>>>> >>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=938817&view=rev >>>>>> Log: >>>>>> allow an optional 'reason' parameter when the status is changed of a >>>>>> customer request >>>>>> >>>>>> Modified: >>>>>> >>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/script/org/ofbiz/order/request/CustRequestServices.xml >>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/servicedef/services_request.xml >>>>>> >>>>>> Modified: >>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/script/org/ofbiz/order/request/CustRequestServices.xml >>>>>> URL: >>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/script/org/ofbiz/order/request/CustRequestServices.xml?rev=938817&r1=938816&r2=938817&view=diff >>>>>> ============================================================================== >>>>>> --- >>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/script/org/ofbiz/order/request/CustRequestServices.xml >>>>>> (original) >>>>>> +++ >>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/script/org/ofbiz/order/request/CustRequestServices.xml >>>>>> Wed Apr 28 08:36:05 2010 >>>>>> @@ -469,6 +469,9 @@ under the License. >>>>>> <check-errors/> >>>>>> >>>>>> <set field="custRequest.statusId" >>>>>> from-field="parameters.statusId"/> >>>>>> + <if-not-empty field="parameters.reason"><!-- update reason if >>>>>> provided --> >>>>>> + <set field="custRequest.reason" >>>>>> from-field="parameters.reason"/> >>>>>> + </if-not-empty> >>>>>> <store-value value-field="custRequest"/> >>>>>> <call-simple-method method-name="createCustRequestStatus"/> >>>>>> </simple-method> >>>>>> >>>>>> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/servicedef/services_request.xml >>>>>> URL: >>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/servicedef/services_request.xml?rev=938817&r1=938816&r2=938817&view=diff >>>>>> ============================================================================== >>>>>> --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/servicedef/services_request.xml >>>>>> (original) >>>>>> +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/order/servicedef/services_request.xml Wed >>>>>> Apr 28 08:36:05 2010 >>>>>> @@ -174,6 +174,7 @@ under the License. >>>>>> <description>Set the Customer Request Status</description> >>>>>> <attribute name="custRequestId" type="String" mode="INOUT" >>>>>> optional="false"/> >>>>>> <attribute name="statusId" type="String" mode="IN" >>>>>> optional="false"/> >>>>>> + <attribute name="reason" type="String" mode="IN" >>>>>> optional="true" allow-html="safe"/> >>>>>> <attribute name="oldStatusId" type="String" mode="OUT" >>>>>> optional="true"/> >>>>>> <attribute name="fromPartyId" type="String" mode="OUT" >>>>>> optional="true"/><!-- for notification services --> >>>>>> <attribute name="custRequestName" type="String" mode="OUT" >>>>>> optional="true"/><!-- for notification services --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz >>>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak >>>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. >>>> >>> >> > -- > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
