Re: Confusing entity names

[Vaibhav Jain]

+1 Suraj

Vaibhav Jain
Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Systems
m: 782-834-1900 e: vaibhav.j...@hotwaxsystems.com


On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Swapnil Mane <
swapnil.m...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> We maintain the document for users to upgrade the revision.
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/
> Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration+-+upgrade+ofbiz
> So, IMO we can proceed with this change.
>
>
> - Best Regards,
> Swapnil M Mane
> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
> suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
> >
> >- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
> >contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
> >*OrderShipGroup.*
> >- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
> it
> >just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
> >re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
> >readablity.
> >
> > I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> > inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
> explanatory',
> > this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> > this topic.
> >
> > Please share your opinions on this.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> > *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> > Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
> >
>

Re: Confusing entity names

[Swapnil Mane]

+1

We maintain the document for users to upgrade the revision.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration+-+upgrade+ofbiz
So, IMO we can proceed with this change.


- Best Regards,
Swapnil M Mane
www.hotwaxsystems.com



On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>*OrderShipGroup.*
>- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>readablity.
>
> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>

Re: Release notes lost in the new site

[Deepak Dixit]

For reference, here [1] is the ticket for above work.
Can we list add these on download page [2]?


[1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10339
[2] http://ofbiz.apache.org/download.html

Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:41 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

> Thanks Deepak
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 12/04/2018 à 11:08, Deepak Dixit a écrit :
>
>> +1 Jacopo,
>>
>> We can get these from old-site[1], I'll add them in current site.
>>
>> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/old-site/
>>
>> Thanks & Regards
>> --
>> Deepak Dixit
>> www.hotwaxsystems.com
>> www.hotwax.co
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>> jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have noticed that, with the migration to the new site, we have lost a
>>> few
>>> of the release notes linked from here:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/ofbiz/
>>>
>>> For example the following are lost and should be recovered:
>>>
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-12.04.06.html
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-13.07.01.html
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-13.07.02.html
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-16.11.01.html
>>> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-16.11.02.html
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>>
>

Re: Confusing entity names

[Taher Alkhateeb]

Premature optimization is something totally different :) But I
understand your point.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux
 wrote:
> I agree (Premature Optimisation...), but let's see what others have to
> say...
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 12/04/2018 à 15:47, Rajesh Mallah a écrit :
>>
>> -1
>>
>> is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc!
>> specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens
>> named similarly.
>>
>> however i agree  with the proposer that they are not named properly.
>>
>> secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks
>> touch scenarios that use the entities in question.
>>
>> presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such
>> changes.
>>
>> May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that
>> aint' broken.
>>
>> regds
>> mallah.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Suraj,
>>>
>>> thanks for your proposal.
>>>
>>> Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
>>> entities.
>>>
>>> Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for data
>>> migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
>>> tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:
>>>
>>> Hello,

 There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.

  - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
  contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
  *OrderShipGroup.*
  - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association
 type,
 it
  just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could
 be
  re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
  readablity.

 I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
 inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
 explanatory',
 this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
 this topic.

 Please share your opinions on this.

 --

 Thanks and Regards,
 *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
 *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
 Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
 Cell phone: +91 96697-50002


>>>
>

Re: Release notes lost in the new site

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Deepak

Jacques


Le 12/04/2018 à 11:08, Deepak Dixit a écrit :

+1 Jacopo,

We can get these from old-site[1], I'll add them in current site.

[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/old-site/

Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:


Hi all,

I have noticed that, with the migration to the new site, we have lost a few
of the release notes linked from here:

http://www.apache.org/dist/ofbiz/

For example the following are lost and should be recovered:

http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-12.04.06.html
http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-13.07.01.html
http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-13.07.02.html
http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-16.11.01.html
http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-16.11.02.html

Jacopo

Re: Confusing entity names

[Jacques Le Roux]

I agree (Premature Optimisation...), but let's see what others have to say...

Jacques


Le 12/04/2018 à 15:47, Rajesh Mallah a écrit :

-1

is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc!
specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens
named similarly.

however i agree  with the proposer that they are not named properly.

secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks
touch scenarios that use the entities in question.

presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such
changes.

May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that
aint' broken.

regds
mallah.



On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl 
wrote:


Hi Suraj,

thanks for your proposal.

Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
entities.

Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for data
migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.

I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.

Thanks and regards,

Michael


Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:

Hello,

There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.

 - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
 contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
 *OrderShipGroup.*
 - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
it
 just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
 re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
 readablity.

I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
explanatory',
this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
this topic.

Please share your opinions on this.

--

Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
*HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: +91 96697-50002

Re: Confusing entity names

[Rajesh Mallah]

-1

is it really worth taking the risk , renaming generally wrecks havoc!
specially considering OFBiz which have 100's of entities and dozens
named similarly.

however i agree  with the proposer that they are not named properly.

secondly , Is the current state of test suites or integration checks
touch scenarios that use the entities in question.

presence of test suites gives more confidence for undertaking such
changes.

May be once we have these it shall be a better time to fix things that
aint' broken.

regds
mallah.



On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Michael Brohl 
wrote:

> Hi Suraj,
>
> thanks for your proposal.
>
> Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these
> entities.
>
> Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for data
> migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.
>
> I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office
> tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
> Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:
>
> Hello,
>>
>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>
>> - *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>> contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>> *OrderShipGroup.*
>> - *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>> it
>> just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>> re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>> readablity.
>>
>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>> explanatory',
>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Confusing entity names

[Michael Brohl]

Hi Suraj,

thanks for your proposal.

Looking at it in isolation, it seems a good idea to just rename these 
entities.


Having the users in mind, I'm not sure if this is worth the need for 
data migrations they have to do if they want to stay up-to-date.


I'm not sure where the original names came from. When I'm in the office 
tomorrow, I'll consult the Data Model Resource Book. I'll be back then.


Thanks and regards,

Michael


Am 10.04.18 um 13:24 schrieb Suraj Khurana:

Hello,

There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.

- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
*OrderShipGroup.*
- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
readablity.

I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
this topic.

Please share your opinions on this.

--

Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
*HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: +91 96697-50002






smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Confusing entity names

[Devanshu Vyas]

+1 Suraj for this improvement.

And my vote is more inclined with the name suggested by Arun here.

Thanks & Regards,
Devanshu Vyas.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Arun Patidar <
arun.pati...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> +1 Suraj for the improvement.  Please see my comments inline:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
> suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
> >
> >- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
> >contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
> >*OrderShipGroup.*
> >- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
> it
> >just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
> >re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
> >readablity.
> >
> >
>  You can rename 'OrderItemShipGroupAssoc'  to 'OrderShipGroupItems' or
> 'OrderShipGroupMember'.
> Renaming it to exisitng entity can be complex and confusing for end user.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> ---
> Arun Patidar
> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>
> www.hotwaxsystems.comwww.hotwax.co
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> > inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
> explanatory',
> > this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> > this topic.
> >
> > Please share your opinions on this.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> > *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> > Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
> >
>

Re: Confusing entity names

[Taher Alkhateeb]

Hi Suraj,

May I recommend giving this conversation some room for others to
contribute their opinion before taking an action (even though I agree
with it). A few more days won't hurt to make sure people are okay with
the idea.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Suraj Khurana
 wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your thoughts and inputs.
>
> Here  is the ticket
> created for the same.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Arun Patidar <
> arun.pati...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 Suraj for the improvement.  Please see my comments inline:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
>> suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>>
>>>- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>>contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>>*OrderShipGroup.*
>>>- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>>> it
>>>just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>>re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>>readablity.
>>>
>>>
>>  You can rename 'OrderItemShipGroupAssoc'  to 'OrderShipGroupItems' or 
>> 'OrderShipGroupMember'.
>> Renaming it to exisitng entity can be complex and confusing for end user.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks & Regards
>> ---
>> Arun Patidar
>> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>>
>> www.hotwaxsystems.comwww.hotwax.co
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>>> explanatory',
>>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>>> this topic.
>>>
>>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>>>
>>
>>

Re: Confusing entity names

[Suraj Khurana]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and inputs.

Here  is the ticket
created for the same.

--
Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
*HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: +91 96697-50002

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Arun Patidar <
arun.pati...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> +1 Suraj for the improvement.  Please see my comments inline:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
> suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>>
>>- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>>contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>>*OrderShipGroup.*
>>- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
>> it
>>just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>>re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>>readablity.
>>
>>
>  You can rename 'OrderItemShipGroupAssoc'  to 'OrderShipGroupItems' or 
> 'OrderShipGroupMember'.
> Renaming it to exisitng entity can be complex and confusing for end user.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> ---
> Arun Patidar
> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
>
> www.hotwaxsystems.comwww.hotwax.co
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
>> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
>> explanatory',
>> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Please share your opinions on this.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
>> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
>> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
>> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>>
>
>

Re: Check for only QOH while doing reservations

[Suraj Khurana]

Thanks everyone for your input.

Here  is the ticket
created for the same.

--
Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
HotWax Commerce   by  HotWax Systems

Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
Cell phone: +91 96697-50002

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Rishi Solanki 
wrote:

> Thanks Swapnil for adding the use case.
>
> After this it looks like, this is kind of scenario when we couldn't lean on
> the ATP. Which should be discussed and addressed. But now I'm sure that
> what Suraj suggested makes sense we can go with the improvement Suraj
> suggested.
>
> In isolation we can discuss and try to address the race condition issue and
> follow the steps.
>
> - Add script to replicate the issue multiple multiple times.
> - Discuss and finalize the fix.
> - Provide fix.
>
> I would like to help in the race condition issue Swapnil shared.
>
> +1 for Suraj to move ahead for the improvement.
>
>
> Rishi Solanki
> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> Direct: +91-9893287847
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
> www.hotwax.co
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Swapnil Shah <
> swapnil.s...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>
> > There are certain business cases around order promising where we found
> that
> > systemic ATP hasn't proved that much reliable. Especially when its
> business
> > decision to not accept or promise more orders than allocated units of
> > supply
> > for sale.
> >
> > For example, during heavy load(ordering) there could be instances when
> > higher number of open orders/carts are competing for same systemic ATP at
> > any given point of time. In such scenarios due to any reason if rate of
> > performing systemic reservations lags behind the rate of ordering than
> > systemic ATP would also keep lagging behind the actual allocation being
> > made
> > with respect to QOH. Thus system would always keep on accepting orders
> and
> > promising them unless systemic ATP goes down to zero (but in reality the
> > QOH
> > Is already exhausted way before than systemic ATP went to zero). It leads
> > to
> > the problem of "Over Promising" and eventually higher than acceptable
> > number
> > of backorders to honor for business.  In the hindsight it looks like this
> > could be one of the reason why the additional check on QOH was in place
> > before.
> >
> > I am not sure if it’s the best way, but one of the possible alternative
> we
> > tried to handle such cases was by grounding the order creation logic
> based
> > on the fact whether there is positive "Available to Order (ATO)" at the
> > time
> > of order submission or adding items to cart rather than ATP.  At high
> level
> > ATO for any given SKU could be determined on run time as follows:
> > ATO = QOH + Incoming Shipments(Scheduled Receipts) - (Total unshipped
> units
> > on Open Orders & Carts)
> >
> > I hope such cases could help in providing more holistic view while
> > leveraging or relying upon the reservation logic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Swapnil
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jacopo Cappellato 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:47 PM
> > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Check for only QOH while doing reservations
> >
> > Thanks Suraj,
> >
> > after reviewing that old commit I am inclined to think that the change
> you
> > are suggesting makes sense.
> > Before that old commit all the inventory items (regardless of their type
> > and
> > qty) were selected and there was logic to iterate thru the result set and
> > exclude the ones with the wrong type and reserve only the ones with ATP.
> > With that commit the type constraint was added to the query and also an
> > additional constraint on QOH (rather than ATP): maybe at that time there
> > was
> > code requiring it or maybe it was done that way to be extra careful.
> > I think we can now proceed as you suggest but before we do we should
> review
> > the code that calls the following services:
> > reserveProductInventoryByFacility
> > reserveProductInventoryByContainer
> >
> > and make sure that the change will not impact them negatively.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Jacopo
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Suraj Khurana <
> > suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Scott,
> > >
> > > I looked around and found some relevant commit.
> > > IMO, it has been mistakenly committed as commit log also doesn't shows
> > > any functional change in commit.
> > > Here
> > >  > > / org/ofbiz/product/inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml?
> > > r1=650764=650763=650764>
> > > is the link for reference.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks and Regards,
> > > *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert HotWax Commerce
> > > by  HotWax 

Re: Release notes lost in the new site

[Deepak Dixit]

+1 Jacopo,

We can get these from old-site[1], I'll add them in current site.

[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/old-site/

Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have noticed that, with the migration to the new site, we have lost a few
> of the release notes linked from here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/ofbiz/
>
> For example the following are lost and should be recovered:
>
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-12.04.06.html
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-13.07.01.html
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-13.07.02.html
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-16.11.01.html
> http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-16.11.02.html
>
> Jacopo
>

Re: ofbiz.apache.org to comply with https://whimsy.apache.org/site/

[Deepak Dixit]

Here is the ticket for the same
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10335

Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit
www.hotwaxsystems.com
www.hotwax.co

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> Thank you Deepak.
>
> I have noticed that your last commit has already fixed the first issue
> (Foundation).
> For the one related to the Security page, the best way to go is in my
> opinion to move the current content to a new security.html page.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Deepak Dixit <
> deepak.di...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dev,
> >
> > ofbiz.apache.org  site fails to compile with https://whimsy.apache.org/
> > site/
> > ,
> > AS per the result it fails in following criteria:
> > -  Foundation 
> > -  Security 
> >
> > You can check summary at following url
> > https://whimsy.apache.org/site/project/ofbiz
> >
> > It might be related to site or some issue at whimsy.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards
> > --
> > Deepak Dixit
> > www.hotwaxsystems.com
> > www.hotwax.co
> >
>

Re: Confusing entity names

[Arun Patidar]

+1 Suraj for the improvement.  Please see my comments inline:


On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>*OrderShipGroup.*
>- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>readablity.
>
>
 You can rename 'OrderItemShipGroupAssoc'  to 'OrderShipGroupItems' or
'OrderShipGroupMember'.
Renaming it to exisitng entity can be complex and confusing for end user.



-- 
Thanks & Regards
---
Arun Patidar
Manager, Enterprise Software Development

www.hotwaxsystems.comwww.hotwax.co







> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>

Release notes lost in the new site

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Hi all,

I have noticed that, with the migration to the new site, we have lost a few
of the release notes linked from here:

http://www.apache.org/dist/ofbiz/

For example the following are lost and should be recovered:

http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-12.04.06.html
http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-13.07.01.html
http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-13.07.02.html
http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-16.11.01.html
http://ofbiz.apache.org/release-notes-16.11.02.html

Jacopo

Re: Confusing entity names

[Akash Jain]

+1

Thanks and Regards
--
Akash Jain

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Suraj Khurana <
suraj.khur...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>*OrderShipGroup.*
>- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>readablity.
>
> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>

Re: Confusing entity names

[Pritam Kute]

+1

Thanks and Regards
--
Pritam Kute

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Taher Alkhateeb  wrote:

> I think by now some people might think my last name is "Refactoring"
> :) But I always welcome improvements. However, such a change needs to
> be carefully done and reviewed and we should ensure that all relevant
> artifacts are updated accordingly (widgets, services, scripts, etc
> ...)
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Suraj Khurana
>  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
> >
> >- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
> >contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
> >*OrderShipGroup.*
> >- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type,
> it
> >just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
> >re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
> >readablity.
> >
> > I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> > inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self
> explanatory',
> > this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> > this topic.
> >
> > Please share your opinions on this.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> > *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> > Cell phone: +91 96697-50002
>

Re: Confusing entity names

[Taher Alkhateeb]

I think by now some people might think my last name is "Refactoring"
:) But I always welcome improvements. However, such a change needs to
be carefully done and reviewed and we should ensure that all relevant
artifacts are updated accordingly (widgets, services, scripts, etc
...)

+1

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Suraj Khurana
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There are some entities which could be renamed as per their usage.
>
>- *OrderItemShipGroup*: It shows order ship groups and it doesn't
>contain anything at order item level. So, it could be re-named as
>*OrderShipGroup.*
>- *OrderItemShipGroupAssoc: *It do not maintain any association type, it
>just contains order item with respect to ship group, so this could be
>re-named as *OrderItemShipGroup *to maintain consistency and code
>readablity.
>
> I know that these entities are crucial part of OOTB data model since
> inception. Having thought in mind that 'Naming should be self explanatory',
> this is a proposal and It would be great to hear communities thought on
> this topic.
>
> Please share your opinions on this.
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> *Suraj Khurana* | Omni-channel OMS Technical Expert
> *HotWax Commerce*  by  *HotWax Systems*
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010
> Cell phone: +91 96697-50002