Jacopo,
I think this is fine and if I understand what you're saying right it
is the way we've been going. In other words we've been punting on the
issue of selling sub-unit quantities for a while.
-David
On Sep 6, 2006, at 11:00 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
David,
David E Jones wrote:
>
> Will this require using sub-unit quantities? That's something we've
> started moving away from, and I'd prefer to continue that...
>
> -David
>
no, I agree with you that we should really avoid this (i.e. in
inventory items the qty, reservations, QOH and ATP will always be
integers numbers).
I've thought a bit about this, and I think that the trick here is
that the unit in the uom set in Product.quantityUomId should be the
minimum indivisibile entity of a product.
For example, if quantityUomId = "centimeters", this means that we
will purchase, sell (or consume) and stock the product in
centimeters (not millimeters).
And the unit price (in ProductPrice) will be referred to one
centimeter of the product.
In this way, I think, the system will work fine as is now; the only
modification I will do is to store the Product.quantityUomId (in
not null, i.e. if not 'units' or 'each' uom) in the already
existing InventoryItem.uomId (every time newly inventory items are
created for the product).
Is this ok?
And, continuing with the example above, (sorry for the long post,
but this is very similar to the issue I'm facing with
SupplierProduct.lastPrice, discussed in another recent thread) if
the product is consumed/stocked in centimeters but we need to
specify the unit price for one meter (because we will sell it in
'units' of 100 centimeters long) we could represent it in the
following way:
Product.quantityUomId: "centimeter"
Product.quantityIncluded: 100
ProductPrice.price = 0.5 $ (i.e. 0.5 is the price for 100
centimeters of the product, i.e. one meter)
In order entry, if I enter a quantity of 2, in the cart the new
item will have a quantity of 200 (2*100) and the item amount will
be 1$ (0.5*2).
Does this make sense? (I'm not sure it is 100% correct)
Jacopo
