Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records

2018-04-25 Thread James Yong 
Hi all,

My vote is for Design Approach #1

Can consider having the additional modifications:

1) Item Issuance & Shipment Receipt entities: Add columns (i.e. 
InventoryTransferHeaderId & InventoryTransferId ) to support inventory transfer 
with shipment.

2) Inventory Transfer Adjustment entity: For the tax. 

Regards,
James Yong

On 2018/04/24 08:20:44, Pawan Verma  wrote: 
> Here is the right link for the subtask OFBIZ-10365<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10365>.
> 
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> HotWax Commerce  by HotWax Systems
> 
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore,
> M.P, India - 452010
> Cell phone: +91 9977705687
> 
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Pawan Verma 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I have added possible 4 different Design approaches for this improvement
> > at subtask OFBIZ-10365. We
> > can discuss on this and finalize best possible approach for this task.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> > HotWax Commerce  by HotWax Systems
> > 
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center,
> > Indore, M.P, India - 452010
> > Cell phone: +91 9977705687
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Pawan Verma <
> > pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >> Thanks, everyone for your thoughts and inputs.
> >>
> >> Here  is the ticket
> >> created for the same. Soon I will add the high-level design of the task.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks and Regards,
> >>
> >> *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> >> HotWax Commerce  by HotWax Systems
> >> 
> >> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center,
> >> Indore, M.P, India - 452010
> >> Cell phone: +91 9977705687
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pierre Smits 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and
> >>> protocols
> >>> is a widely accepted solution.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>>
> >>> Pierre
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity.
> >>> >
> >>> > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > Thanks all your suggestions.
> >>> > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow
> >>> lead
> >>> > to
> >>> > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference
> >>> to use
> >>> > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the
> >>> discussed
> >>> > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain
> >>> and
> >>> > most
> >>> > > flexible way.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then
> >>> let's
> >>> > cut a
> >>> > > JIRA to proceed with it.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thanks,
> >>> > > Swapnil
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -Original Message-
> >>> > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org]
> >>> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM
> >>> > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> >>> > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer
> >>> records
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Hi all,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or
> >>> > without
> >>> > > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory
> >>> > > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and
> >>> Purchase
> >>> > > Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand
> >>> inventory
> >>> > > transfer functionalities in the future.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference.
> >>> > > http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Regards,
> >>> > > James Yong
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah 
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > > > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment
> >>> that
> >>> > > > needs to change hands between source and destination facility as a
> >>> > > > part of single operational system. If we are willing to take Order
> >>> > > > model route, then is it possible that we introduce a new order type
> >>> > > > 'Replenishment Order (RO)' or 'Transfer Order' along with new
> >>> Shipment
> >>> > > > Type ‘Transfer Shipment’. And allow to have these ROs processed
> >>> > > > through this single transfer shipment.
> >>> > > > What it would mean is that:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >1. Create RO with Shipping Facility (i.e. originating
>

Re: Confusing entity names

2018-04-25 Thread Suraj Khurana 
Thanks everyone for all your inputs.
Seems that there is no common conclusion derived for this change.

I will hold/discard the ticket created for this soon.

--
Thanks and Regards,
*Suraj Khurana* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
HotWax Commerce  by  HotWax Systems
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P. India 452010

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Rishi Solanki 
wrote:

> +1 Scott.
> I'm also not in favor of changing the names. Suraj suggested better names
> but existing are also fine. Another point is OrderItemShipGrpInvRes have
> relation with both the mentioned entities. Which tells by modeling that,
> one OISG may have more than one OISGIR which may in turn have different
> shipgroups. That means, one OISG having one order may be connected with
> with single OISGIR or more than one OISGIR. And here item word makes sense
> in the entity names.
>
>
>
> Rishi Solanki
> Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> Direct: +91-9893287847
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
> www.hotwax.co
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Scott Gray 
> wrote:
>
> > Just to throw in my 2 cents, I don't think the naming is so confusing
> that
> > it warrants changing.  The number of replies in this thread highlights
> that
> > it isn't a straightforward thing to change, and personally I don't think
> > the names are so bad that it's worth any of the pain that might come from
> > changing them.
> >
> > IMO "OrderShipGroup" could just as easily imply a group of orders that
> > should be shipped together as though they were a single order.  So to me,
> > "OrderItemShipGroup" does make some sense for the parent entity.
> >
> > The child entity is a bit trickier, because "OrderItemShipGroupOrderItem"
> > is terrible so I guess that's why "Assoc" was chosen as the suffix.
> > "OrderItemShipGroupItem" could work but it's not much better than
> "Assoc".
> >
> > Sometime's names aren't perfect, but they're usually close enough that it
> > doesn't matter very much.
> >
> > Regards
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > On 10 April 2018 at 23:24, Suraj Khurana  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: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records

2018-04-25 Thread Vaibhav Jain 
Hello Pawan,

Inventory transfer is a type of order. So, IMO instead of introducing a new
data model for inventory transfer, we should use Order data model.

+1 for Design approach #3

Thanks & Regards

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

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Pawan Verma 
wrote:

> Here is the right link for the subtask OFBIZ-10365<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10365>.
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> HotWax Commerce  by HotWax Systems
> 
> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center,
> Indore,
> M.P, India - 452010
> Cell phone: +91 9977705687
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Pawan Verma <
> pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I have added possible 4 different Design approaches for this improvement
> > at subtask OFBIZ-10365. We
> > can discuss on this and finalize best possible approach for this task.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> > HotWax Commerce  by HotWax Systems
> > 
> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center,
> > Indore, M.P, India - 452010
> > Cell phone: +91 9977705687
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Pawan Verma <
> > pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >> Thanks, everyone for your thoughts and inputs.
> >>
> >> Here  is the ticket
> >> created for the same. Soon I will add the high-level design of the task.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks and Regards,
> >>
> >> *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer
> >> HotWax Commerce  by HotWax Systems
> >> 
> >> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center,
> >> Indore, M.P, India - 452010
> >> Cell phone: +91 9977705687
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pierre Smits 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and
> >>> protocols
> >>> is a widely accepted solution.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>>
> >>> Pierre
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity.
> >>> >
> >>> > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > Thanks all your suggestions.
> >>> > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow
> >>> lead
> >>> > to
> >>> > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference
> >>> to use
> >>> > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the
> >>> discussed
> >>> > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain
> >>> and
> >>> > most
> >>> > > flexible way.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then
> >>> let's
> >>> > cut a
> >>> > > JIRA to proceed with it.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thanks,
> >>> > > Swapnil
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -Original Message-
> >>> > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org]
> >>> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM
> >>> > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> >>> > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer
> >>> records
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Hi all,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with
> or
> >>> > without
> >>> > > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for
> inventory
> >>> > > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and
> >>> Purchase
> >>> > > Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand
> >>> inventory
> >>> > > transfer functionalities in the future.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference.
> >>> > > http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Regards,
> >>> > > James Yong
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah 
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> > > > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment
> >>> that
> >>> > > > needs to change hands between source and destination facility as
> a
> >>> > > > part of single operational system. If we are willing to take
> Order
> >>> > > > model route, then is it possible that we introduce a new order
> type
> >>> > > > 'Replenishment Order (RO)' or 'Transfer Order' along with new
> >>> Shipment
> >>> > > > Type ‘Transfer Shipment’. And allow to have these ROs
> processed
> >>> > > > through this single transfer shipment.
> >>> > > > What it would mean is that:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >1. Create RO with Shipping Facility (i.e. originating