Re: Fixes from thunk missing ?
Now up to 10 aug ok (not included). This message mainly as a reminder to me. Jacques De : Jacques Le Roux [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those are done, I will continue later... Jacques De : Jacques Le Roux [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I wonder why following fixes have not been merged from the trunk in release4.0 ? It begins when Scott stopped to do it systematically (19 july) thru 1 august included. I Will do remains later... David's http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=557899 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=561457 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=561701 Jacopo's http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=557911 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=561759 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=561858 Anil's http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=559026 Si's http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=559934 This may be out of subject since I found myself lost sometimes. I found that some changes I tried to merge were actually changes on new features or improvements. Scott did really a great job previously ! I will be happy to merge relevant ones Thanks Jacques
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1130) Froms check ... support incomplete
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1130?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527390
]
Jonathon Wong commented on OFBIZ-1130:
--
I don't see check (checkboxes) being used very much in OFBiz right now.
So do you want your patch committed or not? If not, maybe tell somebody to
close this issue?
Froms check ... support incomplete
-
Key: OFBIZ-1130
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1130
Project: OFBiz
Issue Type: Bug
Components: framework
Affects Versions: SVN trunk
Reporter: Wickersheimer Jeremy
Attachments: findServices.patch, htmlFormRenderer.patch
The check boxes used in forms are not properly supported by the framework. I
found out some issues at least with:
- the performFind defined FindServices.java
- the renderCheckField() method in HtmlFormRenderer.java
For example if in a Form of type single i want to use checkboxes to define a
filter on a finder Form:
check
entity-options description=${description} entity-name=StatusItem
key-field-name=statusId
entity-constraint name=statusTypeId value=ORDER_STATUS/
entity-order-by field-name=description/
/entity-options
/check
Then in the list i use performFind :
service service-name=performFind result-map-name=result
result-map-list-name=listIt
field-map field-name=inputFields env-name=requestParameters/
field-map field-name=entityName env-name=entityName/
/service
There will be an Exception thrown by the createCondition() method in
FindServices.java because it expects only ONE value to be given for one
field. But using checkboxes (the same problem would occur with a list i
think) multiple values could be passed.
The problems is that in this method there is the assumption that the value is
a String (unique value selected) whereas it could be a List (multiple value
selected).
The second issue is in the HtmlFormRenderer, the same assumption is made in
the renderCheckField() method to determine whether the checkbox should
rendered selected. Here no exception is thrown because the value is a String
in all case: either the String representation of the value or the String
representation of the List of values ( [val1, val2, ...] )
I have patches for those two issues.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: Board Report for 2007-09
Would it be useful to add the the paragraph about mailing list activity some of the numbers from this page: http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/rgQ ? They clearly shows that the number of subscribers is (slowly but constantly) growing. Jacopo David E Jones wrote: I've just done a few reformatting changes (for easier inclusion in text-only email) and fleshed out the start that Jacopo did on the board report for this month. The current text is here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/ASF+Board+Report+2007-09 The board meeting is next week, so upon PMC approval I'll plan to send this over on Saturday. All are welcome to review and comment on errors and omisions, lunacy and lies. ;) -David PS Thanks for your comment on that Christian, I added mention of you to the report.
Re: Board Report for 2007-09
+1 David E Jones wrote: I've just done a few reformatting changes (for easier inclusion in text-only email) and fleshed out the start that Jacopo did on the board report for this month. The current text is here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/ASF+Board+Report+2007-09 The board meeting is next week, so upon PMC approval I'll plan to send this over on Saturday. All are welcome to review and comment on errors and omisions, lunacy and lies. ;) -David PS Thanks for your comment on that Christian, I added mention of you to the report.
Re: Board Report for 2007-09
Jacopo, credi che evidenziare nel board report il fatto che le localizzazioni di ofbiz sono aumentate (esempio www.ofbiz.it) possa essere utile oppure non interessa ? Pensi che il mio voto sia utile oppure no ? Ciao Marco +1 David E Jones wrote: I've just done a few reformatting changes (for easier inclusion in text-only email) and fleshed out the start that Jacopo did on the board report for this month. The current text is here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/ASF+Board+Report+2007-09 The board meeting is next week, so upon PMC approval I'll plan to send this over on Saturday. All are welcome to review and comment on errors and omisions, lunacy and lies. ;) -David PS Thanks for your comment on that Christian, I added mention of you to the report. -- Leggi GRATIS le tue mail con il telefonino i-mode di Wind http://i-mode.wind.it/
Re: Board Report for 2007-09
+1 On 14/09/2007, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've just done a few reformatting changes (for easier inclusion in text-only email) and fleshed out the start that Jacopo did on the board report for this month. The current text is here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/ASF+Board+Report+2007-09 The board meeting is next week, so upon PMC approval I'll plan to send this over on Saturday. All are welcome to review and comment on errors and omisions, lunacy and lies. ;) -David PS Thanks for your comment on that Christian, I added mention of you to the report.
Re: Board Report for 2007-09
Sorry, for italian messagges. But I wrongly send this e-mail to dev instead to send to Jacopo Cappellato. In any case here I write in Italian: Jacopo you think that it's important to evidence into the board report that the localized sites of ofbiz has been increased (example www.ofbiz.it) can be interesting to them ? You think that my vote is important or it's necessary only for the committers ? Sorry again to all for my mistake. Thanks Marco Risaliti Jacopo, credi che evidenziare nel board report il fatto che le localizzazioni di ofbiz sono aumentate (esempio www.ofbiz.it) possa essere utile oppure non interessa ? Pensi che il mio voto sia utile oppure no ? Ciao Marco +1 David E Jones wrote: I've just done a few reformatting changes (for easier inclusion in text-only email) and fleshed out the start that Jacopo did on the board report for this month. The current text is here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/ASF+Board+Report+2007-09 The board meeting is next week, so upon PMC approval I'll plan to send this over on Saturday. All are welcome to review and comment on errors and omisions, lunacy and lies. ;) -David PS Thanks for your comment on that Christian, I added mention of you to the report. -- Leggi GRATIS le tue mail con il telefonino i-mode di Wind http://i-mode.wind.it/ -- Leggi GRATIS le tue mail con il telefonino i-mode di Wind http://i-mode.wind.it/
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1130) Froms check ... support incomplete
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1130?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527401
]
Jonathon Wong commented on OFBIZ-1130:
--
Hi Wickersheimer Jeremy,
Very well, I take it that you're not interested in pursuing this issue anymore?
I would recommend that your findServices.java patch be committed. And let that
be a step in the right direction towards supporting check. It's still a very
incomplete implementation, though, given my prior observations.
Committers, any thoughts?
Froms check ... support incomplete
-
Key: OFBIZ-1130
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1130
Project: OFBiz
Issue Type: Bug
Components: framework
Affects Versions: SVN trunk
Reporter: Wickersheimer Jeremy
Attachments: findServices.patch, htmlFormRenderer.patch
The check boxes used in forms are not properly supported by the framework. I
found out some issues at least with:
- the performFind defined FindServices.java
- the renderCheckField() method in HtmlFormRenderer.java
For example if in a Form of type single i want to use checkboxes to define a
filter on a finder Form:
check
entity-options description=${description} entity-name=StatusItem
key-field-name=statusId
entity-constraint name=statusTypeId value=ORDER_STATUS/
entity-order-by field-name=description/
/entity-options
/check
Then in the list i use performFind :
service service-name=performFind result-map-name=result
result-map-list-name=listIt
field-map field-name=inputFields env-name=requestParameters/
field-map field-name=entityName env-name=entityName/
/service
There will be an Exception thrown by the createCondition() method in
FindServices.java because it expects only ONE value to be given for one
field. But using checkboxes (the same problem would occur with a list i
think) multiple values could be passed.
The problems is that in this method there is the assumption that the value is
a String (unique value selected) whereas it could be a List (multiple value
selected).
The second issue is in the HtmlFormRenderer, the same assumption is made in
the renderCheckField() method to determine whether the checkbox should
rendered selected. Here no exception is thrown because the value is a String
in all case: either the String representation of the value or the String
representation of the List of values ( [val1, val2, ...] )
I have patches for those two issues.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: Board Report for 2007-09
The board report looks good. Just one little simple comment the sentence starting: About the concern about the no ASF members really active in the project is a lot easier to read as: The concern about there being no ASF members really active in the project Ray David E Jones wrote: I've just done a few reformatting changes (for easier inclusion in text-only email) and fleshed out the start that Jacopo did on the board report for this month. The current text is here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/ASF+Board+Report+2007-09 The board meeting is next week, so upon PMC approval I'll plan to send this over on Saturday. All are welcome to review and comment on errors and omisions, lunacy and lies. ;) -David PS Thanks for your comment on that Christian, I added mention of you to the report.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1187) Leaving out rel-field-name in keymap causes NPE
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1187?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527420 ] Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1187: -- Maybe, if the rel-field-name is missing, the system should look for the same field name as specified in field-name (I mean that the default should be rel-field-name = field-name) What do other think? Leon, do you have a patch for this? Leaving out rel-field-name in keymap causes NPE --- Key: OFBIZ-1187 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1187 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Leon Torres If you leave out the rel-field-name for a keymap that requires it, DatabaseUtil.java will crash with a NPE when trying to create it. To reproduce, add the following to an entityengine.xml, extend-entity entity-name=OrderAdjustment field name=orderAdjustmentSubTypeId type=id/ relation type=one fk-name=ORDER_ADJ_SUBTYPE rel-entity-name=OrderAdjustmentType key-map field-name=orderAdjustmentSubTypeId / /relation /extend-entity Note that the key-map is missing a rel-field-name=orderAdjustmentTypeId. Do an ant run-install to create the key. It should crash with a NPE pointing to line 2150 in DatabaseUtil.java: ModelField relField = relModelEntity.getField(keyMap.getRelFieldName()); I believe it should be testing that getRelFieldName() is null, and if so then log a warning and skip the key. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: svn commit: r575413 - /ofbiz/trunk/applications/manufacturing/src/org/ofbiz/manufacturing/mrp/MrpServices.java
Si,
we will comment on this in the Jira issue; however there was an issue
with your commit: in your patch you test against SALES_ORDER_SHIP while
the seed data was SALE_ORDER_SHIP; however, in rev.575601 I've corrected
the seed data to reflect your commit.
Jacopo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: sichen
Date: Thu Sep 13 12:44:16 2007
New Revision: 575413
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=575413view=rev
Log:
Fix a bug where MRP was using daysToShip to create requirements for parts. Also
provide some information about MRP requirements: show productId and start date
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/applications/manufacturing/src/org/ofbiz/manufacturing/mrp/MrpServices.java
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/applications/manufacturing/src/org/ofbiz/manufacturing/mrp/MrpServices.java
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/manufacturing/src/org/ofbiz/manufacturing/mrp/MrpServices.java?rev=575413r1=575412r2=575413view=diff
==
---
ofbiz/trunk/applications/manufacturing/src/org/ofbiz/manufacturing/mrp/MrpServices.java
(original)
+++
ofbiz/trunk/applications/manufacturing/src/org/ofbiz/manufacturing/mrp/MrpServices.java
Thu Sep 13 12:44:16 2007
@@ -496,7 +496,7 @@
parameters.put(inventoryEventPlanTypeId,
MRP_REQUIREMENT);
double componentEventQuantity = node.getQuantity();
try {
-
InventoryEventPlannedServices.createOrUpdateInventoryEventPlanned(parameters,
new Double(-1.0 * componentEventQuantity), null, null, false, delegator);
+
InventoryEventPlannedServices.createOrUpdateInventoryEventPlanned(parameters, new Double(-1.0 *
componentEventQuantity), null, product.get(productId) + : + eventDate,
false, delegator);
} catch (GenericEntityException e) {
Debug.logError(Error :
delegator.findByPrimaryKey(\InventoryEventPlanned\, parameters)
=+parameters+--+e.getMessage(), module);
logMrpError(node.getProduct().getString(productId),
Unable to create event (processBomComponent), delegator);
@@ -639,13 +639,17 @@
} catch (GenericEntityException e) {
return ServiceUtil.returnError(Problem running
createOrUpdateInventoryEventPlanned);
}
+ // days to ship is only relevant for sales order to
plan for preparatory days to ship. Otherwise MRP will push event dates for
manufacturing parts
+// as well and cause problems
+daysToShip = 0;
if (productFacility != null) {
reorderQuantity =
(productFacility.getDouble(reorderQuantity) != null?
productFacility.getDouble(reorderQuantity).doubleValue(): -1);
minimumStock = (productFacility.getDouble(minimumStock) !=
null? productFacility.getDouble(minimumStock).doubleValue(): 0);
-daysToShip = (productFacility.getLong(daysToShip) != null?
productFacility.getLong(daysToShip).intValue(): 0);
+if
(SALES_ORDER_SHIP.equals(inventoryEventForMRP.getString(inventoryEventPlanTypeId)))
{
+daysToShip = (productFacility.getLong(daysToShip) !=
null? productFacility.getLong(daysToShip).intValue(): 0);
+}
} else {
minimumStock = 0;
-daysToShip = 0;
reorderQuantity = -1;
}
//
-
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1242) MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527468 ] Mario Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1242: - The days to ship are very important for purchase orders. The MRP calculates the requiredByDate from routing tasks and adding the Days to ship to calculate the requirementStartDate. I agree to remove the ship to day from the MRP algorithm but I propose to add a new field (mrpLeadTimeMillis) into ProductFacility and replace the ship to day with this new field in the MRP. Then MRP algorithm will add all the time mrpLeadTimeMillis to the calculated time of every event. I don't think that forcing the proposed date by MRP at now if the date is before of today is a good idea. As is now is better because you have a clear understanding of how late an order is. MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues - Key: OFBIZ-1242 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Si Chen I noticed a couple of interesting issues with the MRP algorithm: It was using ProductFacility.daysToShip to create a buffer time for requirements, but it was doing it for all requirements, so even manufactured parts were having this buffer time added. I fixed it in 575413 by limiting days to ship to only sales order related requirements. However, I believe that daysToShip should be eliminated altogether in MRP, because I think this field should be used as an average value for customer-related how long it takes to ship this order. The actual time to manufacture or order and receive an item may vary, depend on the priority of the order, etc. If a buffer process is required, it should be added for example as a manufacturing routing task. The other issue is that MRP will create inventory events in the past (ie, before the time when it's run.) I think we should limit it so that inventory events created should be now or in the future. If there are no comments to the contrary I will make these changes and commit them. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: Board Report for 2007-09
+1 We may just adjust ML members numbers according to the link Jacopo suggested. Jacques - Message d'origine - De : David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] À : dev@ofbiz.apache.org Envoyé : vendredi 14 septembre 2007 09:41 Objet : Board Report for 2007-09 I've just done a few reformatting changes (for easier inclusion in text-only email) and fleshed out the start that Jacopo did on the board report for this month. The current text is here: http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/ASF+Board+Report+2007-09 The board meeting is next week, so upon PMC approval I'll plan to send this over on Saturday. All are welcome to review and comment on errors and omisions, lunacy and lies. ;) -David PS Thanks for your comment on that Christian, I added mention of you to the report.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1231) Small user interface improvement
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1231?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527479 ] Bilgin Ibryam commented on OFBIZ-1231: -- Jonathon, Thank you for testing and reviewing. Updating the patch 3 times, i did some error in patch. Now i fixed the patch :) preferredCurrencyUomIdusId should be preferredCurrencyUomId, i changed it. I removed the ? from partyIdTo?, now it also work fine. Here i got a question. During person creation in party manger, first name and last name are required. But then you can update the person and remove first name and last name. The same is valid for ecommerce application. While registering as a new customer, the names are required, but later if you decide to update the profile you can remove the names (even they are marked as required). In the person entity, firsName and lastName are not required fields, so removing them is ok, but there are lots of screen (i found 3 of them in few clicks) that assumes firstName and lastName always present for a person. So these screens broke of firstName and lastName are empty. I propose to make these fields also required for updatePerson service, unless there is a reason for not doing so that i missed (or we can do not_required these fields also during person creation). What do you think ? Small user interface improvement Key: OFBIZ-1231 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1231 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Improvement Affects Versions: SVN trunk Reporter: Bilgin Ibryam Priority: Trivial Fix For: SVN trunk Attachments: UI.patch, UI.patch, UI.patch 1. Added some missing lookups and dropdowns. 2. Required filed labels in person creation screen. 3. Preferred contact mech in create person screen was not working. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1231) Small user interface improvement
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1231?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527492 ] Jonathon Wong commented on OFBIZ-1231: -- I think we should make firstName and lastName mandatory for service updatePerson. Consistent with service createPerson. Any other parts of OFBiz that does not respect this mandatory requirement should be reviewed. It's odd to create a Person without firstName and lastName. Small user interface improvement Key: OFBIZ-1231 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1231 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Improvement Affects Versions: SVN trunk Reporter: Bilgin Ibryam Priority: Trivial Fix For: SVN trunk Attachments: UI.patch, UI.patch, UI.patch, UI.patch 1. Added some missing lookups and dropdowns. 2. Required filed labels in person creation screen. 3. Preferred contact mech in create person screen was not working. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1234) mrp to support products w/o orders
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1234?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527537 ] Mario Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1234: - I agree with step #1, #2 and #3. It is important that in step #4 the InventoryEventPlanned records are created with quantity = 0: this should be enough to trigger the MRP algorithm on these products without altering the results. Also, all these steps (2,3,4) have to be exacuted in the MRP init method and not during/after the MRP algorithm. mrp to support products w/o orders --- Key: OFBIZ-1234 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1234 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Improvement Components: manufacturing Reporter: Si Chen Fix For: SVN trunk Improve mrp to support to products which have no orders against them 1. Add new inventoryEventPlannedTypeId = Inventory Below Stock 2. Find a list of all Productfacility records for current facilities where inventory is below ProductFacility.minimumStock 3. As inventoryEventPlanned are created from sales orders, manufacturing, purchasing, remove productId from list in #2 4. At the end, if there are any productIds left in #2, create an InventoryEventPlanned for them. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Assigned: (OFBIZ-1242) MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Si Chen reassigned OFBIZ-1242: -- Assignee: Si Chen MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues - Key: OFBIZ-1242 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Si Chen Assignee: Si Chen I noticed a couple of interesting issues with the MRP algorithm: It was using ProductFacility.daysToShip to create a buffer time for requirements, but it was doing it for all requirements, so even manufactured parts were having this buffer time added. I fixed it in 575413 by limiting days to ship to only sales order related requirements. However, I believe that daysToShip should be eliminated altogether in MRP, because I think this field should be used as an average value for customer-related how long it takes to ship this order. The actual time to manufacture or order and receive an item may vary, depend on the priority of the order, etc. If a buffer process is required, it should be added for example as a manufacturing routing task. The other issue is that MRP will create inventory events in the past (ie, before the time when it's run.) I think we should limit it so that inventory events created should be now or in the future. If there are no comments to the contrary I will make these changes and commit them. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Assigned: (OFBIZ-1242) MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Si Chen reassigned OFBIZ-1242: -- Assignee: (was: Si Chen) MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues - Key: OFBIZ-1242 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Si Chen I noticed a couple of interesting issues with the MRP algorithm: It was using ProductFacility.daysToShip to create a buffer time for requirements, but it was doing it for all requirements, so even manufactured parts were having this buffer time added. I fixed it in 575413 by limiting days to ship to only sales order related requirements. However, I believe that daysToShip should be eliminated altogether in MRP, because I think this field should be used as an average value for customer-related how long it takes to ship this order. The actual time to manufacture or order and receive an item may vary, depend on the priority of the order, etc. If a buffer process is required, it should be added for example as a manufacturing routing task. The other issue is that MRP will create inventory events in the past (ie, before the time when it's run.) I think we should limit it so that inventory events created should be now or in the future. If there are no comments to the contrary I will make these changes and commit them. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1242) MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527538 ] Si Chen commented on OFBIZ-1242: #1 I think if you want to use some measure of how long a product takes to ship, you should be using SupplierProduct not the ProductFacility entity. #2 Then shouldn't the isLate flag be set? It seems always to be set to false MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues - Key: OFBIZ-1242 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Si Chen I noticed a couple of interesting issues with the MRP algorithm: It was using ProductFacility.daysToShip to create a buffer time for requirements, but it was doing it for all requirements, so even manufactured parts were having this buffer time added. I fixed it in 575413 by limiting days to ship to only sales order related requirements. However, I believe that daysToShip should be eliminated altogether in MRP, because I think this field should be used as an average value for customer-related how long it takes to ship this order. The actual time to manufacture or order and receive an item may vary, depend on the priority of the order, etc. If a buffer process is required, it should be added for example as a manufacturing routing task. The other issue is that MRP will create inventory events in the past (ie, before the time when it's run.) I think we should limit it so that inventory events created should be now or in the future. If there are no comments to the contrary I will make these changes and commit them. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1242) MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527556 ] Mario Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1242: - #1 The MRP doesn't analyse SuppliersProduct because it creates the unassigned requirements. #2 Yes, the isLate flag is set to Y when the eventDate is minus of run day. I tried and it is true. MRP days to ship and inventory event planned dates issues - Key: OFBIZ-1242 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1242 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Si Chen I noticed a couple of interesting issues with the MRP algorithm: It was using ProductFacility.daysToShip to create a buffer time for requirements, but it was doing it for all requirements, so even manufactured parts were having this buffer time added. I fixed it in 575413 by limiting days to ship to only sales order related requirements. However, I believe that daysToShip should be eliminated altogether in MRP, because I think this field should be used as an average value for customer-related how long it takes to ship this order. The actual time to manufacture or order and receive an item may vary, depend on the priority of the order, etc. If a buffer process is required, it should be added for example as a manufacturing routing task. The other issue is that MRP will create inventory events in the past (ie, before the time when it's run.) I think we should limit it so that inventory events created should be now or in the future. If there are no comments to the contrary I will make these changes and commit them. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: svn commit: r575675 - in /ofbiz/trunk: LICENSE framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.14.jar framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.15.jar
Should we migrate this in release4.0 ? Jacques De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author: jacopoc Date: Fri Sep 14 06:37:24 2007 New Revision: 575675 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=575675view=rev Log: Updated log4j jar to latest release: this fixes the annoying NPE at startup. Added: ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.15.jar (with props) Removed: ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.14.jar Modified: ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE Modified: ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE?rev=575675r1=575674r2=575675view=diff == --- ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE (original) +++ ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE Fri Sep 14 06:37:24 2007 @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/avalon-framework-4.2.0.jar ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/avalon-util-exception-1.0.0.jar ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/jakarta-regexp-1.5.jar -ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.14.jar +ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.15.jar ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/mx4j-3.0.1.jar ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/mx4j-remote-3.0.1.jar ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/resolver.jar Added: ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.15.jar URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.15.jar?rev=575675view=auto == Binary file - no diff available. Propchange: ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/lib/log4j-1.2.15.jar -- svn:mime-type = application/octet-stream
Re: JQuery conflit Prototype
Hi i am from brasil, can anyone help me???
My problem
I put var $j=jQuery.noConflict(); at my html file, like above...
html
head
titleAtualizar Custo de Venda/title
script type=text/javascript src=../js/validation.js/script
script type=text/javascript src=../js/prototype.js/script
script type=text/javascript src=../js/autocomplete.js/script
link rel=stylesheet href=../styles/autocomplete.css
type=text/css/
link href=../styles/estilo.css rel=stylesheet type=text/css /
script type=text/javascript src=../js/jqmodal.js/script
script type=text/javascript src=../js/index.js/script
script type=text/javascript src=../js/jquery.js/script
script type=text/javascript language=javascript
!--
// evitar conflito com prototype
var $j=jQuery.noConflict();
//--
/script
/head
than everithing is good at prototype but my alert that i made by jQuery
dont work? i have a message JQuery is not defined.here my index.js
above...
function invocaDialog(message){
$j('#alert').jqm({
overlay: 60,
overlayClass: 'overlay',
modal: true,
trigger: false
});
$j('#confirm').jqm({
overlay: 60,
overlayClass: 'overlay',
modal: true,
trigger: false
});
//confirm(Deseja ler o restante do arquivo?, index.html);
alert(message);
}
function alert(msg) {
$j('#alert')
.jqmShow()
.find('div.jqmAlertContent')
.html( alert.gif + msg + )
.end()
.find(':submit:visible')
.click(function() {
$j('#alert').jqmHide();
});
}
function confirm(msg,callback) {
$j('#confirm')
.jqmShow()
.find('p.jqmConfirmMsg')
.html( confirm.gif + msg + )
.end()
.find(':submit:visible')
.click(function(){
if(this.value == 'Sim')
(typeof callback == 'string') ?
window.location.href = callback :
callback;
$j('#confirm').jqmHide();
});
}
i have to make changes at jQuery.js file and jqmodal.js file too..what´s
wrong? help-me i am a new bye...thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Dojo-vs.-Prototype-vs.-whatever-tf4426161.html#a12680113
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
[jira] Updated: (OFBIZ-615) Re-Factor WorkEffort permissions to follow new patterns
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-615?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Anil K Patel updated OFBIZ-615: --- Attachment: WorkEffortSecurity.patch Services for checking permission are already in trunk. Apply this patch to modify services to start using new permission check services. Re-Factor WorkEffort permissions to follow new patterns --- Key: OFBIZ-615 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-615 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Sub-task Components: workeffort Reporter: Andrew Zeneski Assignee: Andrew Zeneski Attachments: WorkEffortSecurity.patch, WorkEffortSecurity.patch, WorkEffortSecurity.patch, WorkEffortSecurity.patch, WorkEffortSecurity.patch -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1227) survey screen fix
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1227?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527691 ] Jonathon Wong commented on OFBIZ-1227: -- Why remove parameter partyId for request ViewSurveyResponses? Is it because it is not used at all? If so, I agree with it. If you search for survey from find survey screen (for example with id = 1) you will get all the surveys stating with id=1, but at this stage the survey menu will appears, thinking that we choose a survey with id 1 Your fix is correct. The CommonSurveyDecorator should not set field surveyId, nor retrieve entity Survey. Screens like FindSurvey depend on CommonSurveyDecorator, but is not a survey-specific screen. Survey-specific screens are like EditSurvey, which also depends on CommonSurveyDecorator. if you add a product with survey to shopping cart and try to see the survey, the given link is broken I couldn't reproduce this bug. More details, please? I searched Ecommerce module, but couldn't find any references to ViewSurveyResponses. I also tried using the OrderMgr module to test the surveys. There's a bug in there, surveys cannot be responded to (error msg You have already responded to this survey; multiple responses are not allowed). survey screen fix - Key: OFBIZ-1227 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1227 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Components: content Affects Versions: SVN trunk Reporter: Bilgin Ibryam Priority: Minor Fix For: SVN trunk Attachments: survey.patch Here i will explain the bugs fixed: if you add a product with survey to shopping cart and try to see the survey, the given link is broken. I add some code the get the surveyId from surveyResponseId. If you search for survey from find survey screen (for example with id = 1) you will get all the surveys stating with id=1, but at this stage the survey menu will appears, thinking that we choose a survey with id 1. And this survey menu is broken(surveyId=1, it is only a search criteria, not an existing survey id). Removing some unused fields from FindSurveyscreen and CommonSurveyDecorator fixed these bugs. I also have a question/proposal: Isn't it better to change the links ( from shopping cart and order review screens ) from ViewSurveyResponses to EditSurveyResponse. If we change it, clicking on the survey link from an order/shoppingcart item, will show us the exact survey response and ability to edit it, instead of all the responses to the survey, as it is now ? Bilgin Ibryam -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-1086) Show prices incl. VAT in shoppingcart Total and miniproductsummary
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1086?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527695
]
Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-1086:
--
Thomas, thank you for the patch; Christian, thank you for the review and
comment.
In my opinion Christian is right: we cannot include this patch as is now; the
solution proposed by Christian is interesting but maybe the best solution is to
include the logic inside of the ShoppingCart.getDisplayGrandTotal() method. And
instead of testing for (shoppingCart.getTotalSalesTax() 0.0) we should look
at the ProductStore.showPricesWithVatTax (or a similar flag).
I mean something like this (in pseudocode):
public double getDisplayGrandTotal() {
if (ProductStore.showPricesWithVatTax equals to Y) {
return this.getDisplaySubTotal() + this.getTotalShipping() +
this.getTotalSalesTax() + this.getOrderOtherAdjustmentTotal();
} else {
return getGrandTotal();
}
}
And then in the ecommerce we could simply use the
ShoppingCart.getDisplayGrandTotal() method everywhere.
Show prices incl. VAT in shoppingcart Total and miniproductsummary
--
Key: OFBIZ-1086
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1086
Project: OFBiz
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: ecommerce, order
Affects Versions: SVN trunk
Reporter: Thomas Herzog
Fix For: SVN trunk
Attachments: carttotal_miniproductsummary_prices__incl_VAT.diff
In current implementation of VAT displays a mixture of incl. and excl. prices
in some ecommerce screens. This patch shows prices incl. VAT for Mini
Shopping Cart Total, Micro Shopping Cart Total (displayed in the Header),
Last Products Minibox and Quick Reorder... Minibox.
It also solves issuses left open in OFBIZ-113.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-745) Empty response send by SOAPEventhandler when Exception occurs
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-745?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12527696
]
Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-745:
-
Is there anyone interested in this patch and willing to use it / test it and
review it?
Empty response send by SOAPEventhandler when Exception occurs
-
Key: OFBIZ-745
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-745
Project: OFBiz
Issue Type: Bug
Components: framework
Affects Versions: SVN trunk
Environment: SUSE Linux 10.1 MySQL 5.0.18
Reporter: Michael Imhof
Attachments: patch745.txt
Calling a OfBiz SOAP Service with wrong arguments returns an empty response
instead of a Fault SOAP envelope.
Class:
=
SOAPEventhandler.java
Solution
===
New sendError(..) methods:
private void sendError(HttpServletResponse res, String errorMsg) {
sendError(res, new AxisFault(errorMsg));
}
private void sendError(HttpServletResponse res, Exception e) {
AxisFault axisFault = null;
if (e instanceof AxisFault) {
axisFault = (AxisFault)e;
} else {
axisFault = AxisFault.makeFault(e);
}
SOAPEnvelope env = new SOAPEnvelope();
try {
SOAPBody body = env.getBody();
SOAPFault fault = body.addFault();
fault.setFaultString(axisFault.getFaultString());
fault.setFaultCode(axisFault.getFaultCode().getLocalPart());
fault.setFaultActor(axisFault.getFaultActor());
env.setEncodingStyle(Constants.URI_LITERAL_ENC);
Message msg = new Message(env);
msg.writeTo(res.getOutputStream());
res.flushBuffer();
} catch(SOAPException se) {
Debug.logWarning(se, SOAP response not generated, module);
} catch(IOException ie) {
Debug.logWarning(ie, SOAP response not generated, module);
}
}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
