Thank you, Swapnil for the detailed explanation.
Considering only the ordered quantity of an item for a specific
requirement, we can create OrderRequirementCommitment while placing the PO.
I have uploaded the patch for the same.

Thanks and Regards
*Rahul Bhooteshwar*
Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> - *Global leader in
innovative enterprise commerce solutions **powered by Apache OFBiz.*

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Swapnil Shah <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes I do agree on suggested usage of OrderRequirementCommitment to link
> Order and Requirement. Apart from this for following thought...
> " Also out of 10 requirements if PO is created and approved for 5
> requirements then this particular requirement should be marked as "Ordered"
> and for remaining 5 requirements we should create new requirement so that
> we
> don't lose those requirements in system."
>
> IMO, Let's leave the requirement in Ordered state and don't forcefully
> create requirement for remaining qty. Requirement (via any systemic
> workflow
> like MRP or Manually) are suggested quantity based on state of affair at
> the
> time when that requirement came into existence in system and it's up to
> buyer to take call and hence reduce/increase this suggested quantity while
> placing the orders. In the next systemic run (of MRP or manually by user)
> the requirement could be regenerate based on the then demand/supply gap.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Swapnil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Divesh Dutta [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 5:47 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Rahul Bhooteshwar <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Linking Purchase Orders with Requirements
>
> In my opinion we are good to use OrderRequirementCommitment table for
> associating POs created with respect to requirements. This way we will be
> able to track what POs are wrt which SOs. This can help us in future to see
> PO lined up wrt SOs.
>
> Also similar to SO, we should mark Requirement "Ordered" only when PO is
> "approved". Also out of 10 requirements if PO is created and approved for 5
> requirements then this particular requirement should be marked as "Ordered"
> and for remaining 5 requirements we should create new requirement so that
> we
> don't loose those requirements in system.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Divesh Dutta.
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Rahul Bhooteshwar <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> > I was exploring the issue OFBIZ-7128
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7128> which is regarding
> > the listing of the Purchase Orders generated using approved requirements.
> >
> > Currently, the  system doesn't keep track of POs with respect to
> > requirements. In the case of sales orders, *OrderRequirementCommitment
> > *records are being generated once the order status changes from
> > *Created to Approved*.
> >
> > Should we create *OrderRequirementCommitment *records for Purchase
> > orders at the time of placing the PO, so that the POs can be tracked
> > corresponding to the particular Requirement.
> >
> > As of now the approved requirements are only used for initializing PO
> > cart & then the requirement is being marked as *ordered *once the PO is
> > created.
> > This work flow should also be improved, as we are always free to edit
> > the cart items & how can we mark a requirement as *ordered* if we
> > reduced the quantity of the item corresponding to the requirement while
> > placing the PO.
> >
> > In short there are two major concerns:
> >
> >    - Need of *OrderRequirementCommitment records* for PO
> >    - Proper validation while Marking Requirements *Ordered *when placing
> >    POs using Requirements
> >
> > I would like to invite you all for discussing these requirements,  so
> > that we can conclude this work flow properly.
> >
> >
> > Thanks and Regards
> > *Rahul Bhooteshwar*
> > Enterprise Software Engineer
> > HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> - *Global leader in
> > innovative enterprise commerce solutions **powered by Apache OFBiz.*
> >
>

Reply via email to