Reviving the OFBiz community day

[Swapnil M Mane]

Hello team,
We are having a great community, I would like to thank everyone for their
participation.

In year 2017, we start celebrating the OFBiz community days [1].
The contribution during community days played very significant role in
improvement of framework.
Should we start this celebration again, thought?


[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+Community+Days


- Best Regards,
Swapnil M Mane,
ofbiz.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Jacques Le Roux]

A bit out of subject, just to complete the discussion because nobody spoke 
about.

The entities are defined with no-auto-stamp="false" by default so it's possible 
to change this default.

Of course 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' fields are not 
concerned, it was just to complete

Jacques


Le 24/04/2019 à 13:36, Rishi Solanki a écrit :

Michael,
Thank you for details, all makes sense.

Best Regards,
--
*Rishi Solanki* | Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems 
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part 2, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore,
M.P 452010
Linkedin: *Rishi Solanki*

Direct: +91-9893287847


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:37 PM Michael Brohl 
wrote:


I have not time to elaborate in-depth right now, but just a quick food
for thought:

Having these fields in every entity *by default* allows detailed
tracking of users which might be unwanted. I know that this is a
sensible topic in companies and affects privacy protection.

I am not sure how the selection of entities with these fields was done,
maybe others can add insights.

Regards,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 24.04.19 um 12:40 schrieb Pierre Smits:

Thanks Michael,

So we should keep those *TxStamp fields.

But what about the second suggestion about having the

'createdByUserLogin'

and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin'  fields added to the internal fields set?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
*Apache Directory , PMC Member*
Apache Incubator , committer
*Apache OFBiz , contributor (without

privileges)

since 2008*
Apache Steve , committer


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:20 PM Michael Brohl 
These fields are not the same, they can differ. The TX fields mark the
transaction timestamp while the non TX fields mark the "real" update
time. You can see it when you watch closely in the database. All changes
made within an transaction have the same tx timestamp.

Regards,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 24.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Pierre Smits:

Hi All,

Currently our functions inject following internal fields into the model

of

each entity:

  - createdStamp
  - createdTxStamp
  - lastUpdatedStamp
  - lastUpdatedTxStamp

All of the fields above are of the field type definition 'date-time',
giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP. This means
that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and

lastUpdatedTxStamp

is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.

Should we get rid of the redundant fields?

Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have the
'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.

Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so that

these

are always injected into the model of each entity, and always filled?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
*Apache Directory , PMC Member*
Apache Incubator , committer
*Apache OFBiz , contributor (without

privileges)

since 2008*
Apache Steve , committer

Re: Fwd: [PROPOSAL] Enable entity timestamp fields

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks Guys,

Makes sense to me

Jacques

Le 24/04/2019 à 08:36, Deepak Dixit a écrit :

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:58 AM Nicolas Malin 
wrote:


Hello,

On 24/04/2019 08:01, Deepak Dixit wrote:

I think it's removed while converting find generic ftl to form widget
at OFBIZ-9217

Yes it's me :)

Was it intentional? If yes what was the reason?

Yes and not, when I converted it to widget screen I did a choice slim
code, increase functionality but lose timestamp field on result list.

I think it's not intentional, form widget auto-fields-entity exclude the
stamp filed, that's why it's not rendering on webtools find generic page.

If you want to enable it, I suggest to improve auto-fields-entity system
to support internal fields by parameters



Agree, we can extend auto-fields-entity and add an option to include
internal default value will be false.

@Pawan, Could you please open a Jira ticket for the same?

Thanks & Regads
--
Deepak Dixit



Nicolas


Kind Regards,
Deepak Dixit


On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:57 PM Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:


Hi Pawan,

Seems to make sense, do you know when (by which commit) it has been
removed. Was it intentional? If yes what was the reason?

Thanks

Jacques

Le 19/04/2019 à 18:03, Pawan Verma a écrit :

Hello  Devs,

While working on a Production environment, I have found that for some
reason entity timestamp fields are disabled at Search Results screen in
Trunk and the previous release branch. It is available at View Value
screen. It was enabled in Release 16.11.

These fields are helpful for developers to get the idea about when the

row

in the entity is created/updated. Extremely helpful while working on

the

Production environment.

I propose to reenable these fields. Views/suggestions are most welcome.

Re: [PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Deepak Dixit]

I am not able to find the thread,
But I remember we had already a discussion regarding the same topic.

Kind Regards,
Deepak Dixit


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:37 PM Michael Brohl 
wrote:

> I have not time to elaborate in-depth right now, but just a quick food
> for thought:
>
> Having these fields in every entity *by default* allows detailed
> tracking of users which might be unwanted. I know that this is a
> sensible topic in companies and affects privacy protection.
>
> I am not sure how the selection of entities with these fields was done,
> maybe others can add insights.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brohl
>
> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>
>
> Am 24.04.19 um 12:40 schrieb Pierre Smits:
> > Thanks Michael,
> >
> > So we should keep those *TxStamp fields.
> >
> > But what about the second suggestion about having the
> 'createdByUserLogin'
> > and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin'  fields added to the internal fields set?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
> > *Apache Directory , PMC Member*
> > Apache Incubator , committer
> > *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without
> privileges)
> > since 2008*
> > Apache Steve , committer
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:20 PM Michael Brohl  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> These fields are not the same, they can differ. The TX fields mark the
> >> transaction timestamp while the non TX fields mark the "real" update
> >> time. You can see it when you watch closely in the database. All changes
> >> made within an transaction have the same tx timestamp.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Michael Brohl
> >>
> >> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 24.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Pierre Smits:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Currently our functions inject following internal fields into the model
> >> of
> >>> each entity:
> >>>
> >>>  - createdStamp
> >>>  - createdTxStamp
> >>>  - lastUpdatedStamp
> >>>  - lastUpdatedTxStamp
> >>>
> >>> All of the fields above are of the field type definition 'date-time',
> >>> giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP. This means
> >>> that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and
> >> lastUpdatedTxStamp
> >>> is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.
> >>>
> >>> Should we get rid of the redundant fields?
> >>>
> >>> Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have the
> >>> 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.
> >>>
> >>> Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so that
> >> these
> >>> are always injected into the model of each entity, and always filled?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pierre Smits
> >>>
> >>> *Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
> >>> *Apache Directory , PMC Member*
> >>> Apache Incubator , committer
> >>> *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without
> >> privileges)
> >>> since 2008*
> >>> Apache Steve , committer
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Rishi Solanki]

Michael,
Thank you for details, all makes sense.

Best Regards,
--
*Rishi Solanki* | Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems 
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part 2, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore,
M.P 452010
Linkedin: *Rishi Solanki*

Direct: +91-9893287847


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:37 PM Michael Brohl 
wrote:

> I have not time to elaborate in-depth right now, but just a quick food
> for thought:
>
> Having these fields in every entity *by default* allows detailed
> tracking of users which might be unwanted. I know that this is a
> sensible topic in companies and affects privacy protection.
>
> I am not sure how the selection of entities with these fields was done,
> maybe others can add insights.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brohl
>
> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>
>
> Am 24.04.19 um 12:40 schrieb Pierre Smits:
> > Thanks Michael,
> >
> > So we should keep those *TxStamp fields.
> >
> > But what about the second suggestion about having the
> 'createdByUserLogin'
> > and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin'  fields added to the internal fields set?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
> > *Apache Directory , PMC Member*
> > Apache Incubator , committer
> > *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without
> privileges)
> > since 2008*
> > Apache Steve , committer
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:20 PM Michael Brohl  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> These fields are not the same, they can differ. The TX fields mark the
> >> transaction timestamp while the non TX fields mark the "real" update
> >> time. You can see it when you watch closely in the database. All changes
> >> made within an transaction have the same tx timestamp.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Michael Brohl
> >>
> >> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 24.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Pierre Smits:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Currently our functions inject following internal fields into the model
> >> of
> >>> each entity:
> >>>
> >>>  - createdStamp
> >>>  - createdTxStamp
> >>>  - lastUpdatedStamp
> >>>  - lastUpdatedTxStamp
> >>>
> >>> All of the fields above are of the field type definition 'date-time',
> >>> giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP. This means
> >>> that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and
> >> lastUpdatedTxStamp
> >>> is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.
> >>>
> >>> Should we get rid of the redundant fields?
> >>>
> >>> Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have the
> >>> 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.
> >>>
> >>> Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so that
> >> these
> >>> are always injected into the model of each entity, and always filled?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pierre Smits
> >>>
> >>> *Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
> >>> *Apache Directory , PMC Member*
> >>> Apache Incubator , committer
> >>> *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without
> >> privileges)
> >>> since 2008*
> >>> Apache Steve , committer
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Michael Brohl]

I have not time to elaborate in-depth right now, but just a quick food 
for thought:


Having these fields in every entity *by default* allows detailed 
tracking of users which might be unwanted. I know that this is a 
sensible topic in companies and affects privacy protection.


I am not sure how the selection of entities with these fields was done, 
maybe others can add insights.


Regards,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 24.04.19 um 12:40 schrieb Pierre Smits:

Thanks Michael,

So we should keep those *TxStamp fields.

But what about the second suggestion about having the  'createdByUserLogin'
and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin'  fields added to the internal fields set?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
*Apache Directory , PMC Member*
Apache Incubator , committer
*Apache OFBiz , contributor (without privileges)
since 2008*
Apache Steve , committer


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:20 PM Michael Brohl 
wrote:


These fields are not the same, they can differ. The TX fields mark the
transaction timestamp while the non TX fields mark the "real" update
time. You can see it when you watch closely in the database. All changes
made within an transaction have the same tx timestamp.

Regards,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 24.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Pierre Smits:

Hi All,

Currently our functions inject following internal fields into the model

of

each entity:

 - createdStamp
 - createdTxStamp
 - lastUpdatedStamp
 - lastUpdatedTxStamp

All of the fields above are of the field type definition 'date-time',
giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP. This means
that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and

lastUpdatedTxStamp

is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.

Should we get rid of the redundant fields?

Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have the
'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.

Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so that

these

are always injected into the model of each entity, and always filled?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
*Apache Directory , PMC Member*
Apache Incubator , committer
*Apache OFBiz , contributor (without

privileges)

since 2008*
Apache Steve , committer







smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Pierre Smits]

Thanks Michael,

So we should keep those *TxStamp fields.

But what about the second suggestion about having the  'createdByUserLogin'
and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin'  fields added to the internal fields set?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
*Apache Directory , PMC Member*
Apache Incubator , committer
*Apache OFBiz , contributor (without privileges)
since 2008*
Apache Steve , committer


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:20 PM Michael Brohl 
wrote:

> These fields are not the same, they can differ. The TX fields mark the
> transaction timestamp while the non TX fields mark the "real" update
> time. You can see it when you watch closely in the database. All changes
> made within an transaction have the same tx timestamp.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brohl
>
> ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de
>
>
> Am 24.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Pierre Smits:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Currently our functions inject following internal fields into the model
> of
> > each entity:
> >
> > - createdStamp
> > - createdTxStamp
> > - lastUpdatedStamp
> > - lastUpdatedTxStamp
> >
> > All of the fields above are of the field type definition 'date-time',
> > giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP. This means
> > that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and
> lastUpdatedTxStamp
> > is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.
> >
> > Should we get rid of the redundant fields?
> >
> > Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have the
> > 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.
> >
> > Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so that
> these
> > are always injected into the model of each entity, and always filled?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
> > *Apache Directory , PMC Member*
> > Apache Incubator , committer
> > *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without
> privileges)
> > since 2008*
> > Apache Steve , committer
> >
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Michael Brohl]

These fields are not the same, they can differ. The TX fields mark the 
transaction timestamp while the non TX fields mark the "real" update 
time. You can see it when you watch closely in the database. All changes 
made within an transaction have the same tx timestamp.


Regards,

Michael Brohl

ecomify GmbH - www.ecomify.de


Am 24.04.19 um 09:48 schrieb Pierre Smits:

Hi All,

Currently our functions inject following internal fields into the model of
each entity:

- createdStamp
- createdTxStamp
- lastUpdatedStamp
- lastUpdatedTxStamp

All of the fields above are of the field type definition 'date-time',
giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP. This means
that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and lastUpdatedTxStamp
is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.

Should we get rid of the redundant fields?

Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have the
'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.

Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so that these
are always injected into the model of each entity, and always filled?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
*Apache Directory , PMC Member*
Apache Incubator , committer
*Apache OFBiz , contributor (without privileges)
since 2008*
Apache Steve , committer





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Rishi Solanki]

Dear Pierre,
I'm not aware of history of this duplicate entries. I agree with you on
removing duplicate fields. Also agree with adding created user and updated
user fields as default.

Few points for open discussion for community;
- There are many entities already have user fields, so do we need to remove
them. Point to discuss. IMO we can live with both.
- There are certain entries like dimension, search etc which does not
require user information.
- From community if someone have information on Tx fields then we can
rethink of not removing.

Lastly, this thread should take time to conclude after all inputs.

Thanks for interesting proposal!

Best Regards,
--
*Rishi Solanki* | Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems 
Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part 2, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore,
M.P 452010
Linkedin: *Rishi Solanki*

Direct: +91-9893287847


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:19 PM Pierre Smits  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Currently our functions inject following internal fields into the model of
> each entity:
>
>- createdStamp
>- createdTxStamp
>- lastUpdatedStamp
>- lastUpdatedTxStamp
>
> All of the fields above are of the field type definition 'date-time',
> giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP. This means
> that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and lastUpdatedTxStamp
> is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.
>
> Should we get rid of the redundant fields?
>
> Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have the
> 'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.
>
> Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so that these
> are always injected into the model of each entity, and always filled?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
> *Apache Directory , PMC Member*
> Apache Incubator , committer
> *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without privileges)
> since 2008*
> Apache Steve , committer
>

Re: Adding Apache License link in main navigation (footer) of OFBiz site

[Swapnil M Mane]

Sure Deepak, thank you for the comment.


- Best Regards,
Swapnil M Mane,
ofbiz.apache.org



On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:49 AM Deepak Dixit 
wrote:

> Hi Swapnil,
>
> I think we should use the following link as licenses
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>
> Kind Regards,
> Deepak Dixit
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:52 AM Swapnil M Mane 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello team,
> >
> > Whimsy site check [1] showing the fail result in 'License' check type for
> > OFBiz site [2].
> >
> > It is showing message -
> > "URL expected to match regular expression: ^https?://.*
> > apache.org/licenses/?$"
> >
> > But we already have a link of license [3] in the footer of OFBiz site
> with
> > text Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
> >
> > Thus I communicate with Whimy team and here is the response from them,
> >
> > ===
> > There are no standard navigation links:
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs#navigation
> > ===
> >
> > Reference from link above
> >
> > > These links can appear in whatever main navigation system your site
> uses
> > > on all top level pages for the project or subproject.
> >
> >
> > So, I think, we should add License link in the "ASF Information" section,
> > defined in the *footer* of OFBiz site [2].
> > Please let me know your thoughts on this.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://whimsy.apache.org/site/project/ofbiz
> > [2] https://ofbiz.apache.org/
> > [3] https://www.apache.org/licenses/
> >
> >
> > - Best Regards,
> > Swapnil M Mane,
> > ofbiz.apache.org
> >
>

[PROPOSAL] DataModel - Improve Internal Fields injection

[Pierre Smits]

Hi All,

Currently our functions inject following internal fields into the model of
each entity:

   - createdStamp
   - createdTxStamp
   - lastUpdatedStamp
   - lastUpdatedTxStamp

All of the fields above are of the field type definition 'date-time',
giving for java: java.sql.Timestamp, and for sql: TIMESTAMP. This means
that the createdTxStamp is the same as createdStamp  and lastUpdatedTxStamp
is the same as lastUpdatedStamp.

Should we get rid of the redundant fields?

Also, a lot of entity definitions in the various models have the
'createdByUserLogin' and 'lastModifiedByUserLogin' added.

Should we have these fields added to the internal fields set so that these
are always injected into the model of each entity, and always filled?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
*Apache Directory , PMC Member*
Apache Incubator , committer
*Apache OFBiz , contributor (without privileges)
since 2008*
Apache Steve , committer

Re: Fwd: [PROPOSAL] Enable entity timestamp fields

[Deepak Dixit]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:58 AM Nicolas Malin 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 24/04/2019 08:01, Deepak Dixit wrote:
> > I think it's removed while converting find generic ftl to form widget
> > at OFBIZ-9217
> Yes it's me :)
> >>> Was it intentional? If yes what was the reason?
> Yes and not, when I converted it to widget screen I did a choice slim
> code, increase functionality but lose timestamp field on result list.
> > I think it's not intentional, form widget auto-fields-entity exclude the
> > stamp filed, that's why it's not rendering on webtools find generic page.
>
> If you want to enable it, I suggest to improve auto-fields-entity system
> to support internal fields by parameters
>


Agree, we can extend auto-fields-entity and add an option to include
internal default value will be false.

@Pawan, Could you please open a Jira ticket for the same?

Thanks & Regads
--
Deepak Dixit


>
> Nicolas
>
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Deepak Dixit
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:57 PM Jacques Le Roux <
> > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Pawan,
> >>
> >> Seems to make sense, do you know when (by which commit) it has been
> >> removed. Was it intentional? If yes what was the reason?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >> Le 19/04/2019 à 18:03, Pawan Verma a écrit :
> >>> Hello  Devs,
> >>>
> >>> While working on a Production environment, I have found that for some
> >>> reason entity timestamp fields are disabled at Search Results screen in
> >>> Trunk and the previous release branch. It is available at View Value
> >>> screen. It was enabled in Release 16.11.
> >>>
> >>> These fields are helpful for developers to get the idea about when the
> >> row
> >>> in the entity is created/updated. Extremely helpful while working on
> the
> >>> Production environment.
> >>>
> >>> I propose to reenable these fields. Views/suggestions are most welcome.
> >>>
>

Re: Fwd: [PROPOSAL] Enable entity timestamp fields

[Nicolas Malin]

Hello,

On 24/04/2019 08:01, Deepak Dixit wrote:

I think it's removed while converting find generic ftl to form widget
at OFBIZ-9217

Yes it's me :)

Was it intentional? If yes what was the reason?
Yes and not, when I converted it to widget screen I did a choice slim 
code, increase functionality but lose timestamp field on result list.

I think it's not intentional, form widget auto-fields-entity exclude the
stamp filed, that's why it's not rendering on webtools find generic page.


If you want to enable it, I suggest to improve auto-fields-entity system 
to support internal fields by parameters


Nicolas



Kind Regards,
Deepak Dixit


On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:57 PM Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:


Hi Pawan,

Seems to make sense, do you know when (by which commit) it has been
removed. Was it intentional? If yes what was the reason?

Thanks

Jacques

Le 19/04/2019 à 18:03, Pawan Verma a écrit :

Hello  Devs,

While working on a Production environment, I have found that for some
reason entity timestamp fields are disabled at Search Results screen in
Trunk and the previous release branch. It is available at View Value
screen. It was enabled in Release 16.11.

These fields are helpful for developers to get the idea about when the

row

in the entity is created/updated. Extremely helpful while working on the
Production environment.

I propose to reenable these fields. Views/suggestions are most welcome.

Re: Adding Apache License link in main navigation (footer) of OFBiz site

[Deepak Dixit]

Hi Swapnil,

I think we should use the following link as licenses
https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Kind Regards,
Deepak Dixit


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:52 AM Swapnil M Mane 
wrote:

> Hello team,
>
> Whimsy site check [1] showing the fail result in 'License' check type for
> OFBiz site [2].
>
> It is showing message -
> "URL expected to match regular expression: ^https?://.*
> apache.org/licenses/?$"
>
> But we already have a link of license [3] in the footer of OFBiz site with
> text Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
>
> Thus I communicate with Whimy team and here is the response from them,
>
> ===
> There are no standard navigation links:
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs#navigation
> ===
>
> Reference from link above
>
> > These links can appear in whatever main navigation system your site uses
> > on all top level pages for the project or subproject.
>
>
> So, I think, we should add License link in the "ASF Information" section,
> defined in the *footer* of OFBiz site [2].
> Please let me know your thoughts on this.
>
>
> [1] https://whimsy.apache.org/site/project/ofbiz
> [2] https://ofbiz.apache.org/
> [3] https://www.apache.org/licenses/
>
>
> - Best Regards,
> Swapnil M Mane,
> ofbiz.apache.org
>

Re: Day name and Month Name

[Pierre Smits]

Hi Deepak,

Thanks, I found the solution while working on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10947

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
*Apache Directory , PMC Member*
Apache Incubator , committer
*Apache OFBiz , contributor (without privileges)
since 2008*
Apache Steve , committer


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 8:10 AM Deepak Dixit  wrote:

> Hi Pierre,
>
> You can use SimpleDateFormat or DateFormatSymbols class to achieve your
> requirements
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 4:52 PM Pierre Smits 
> wrote:
>
> > HI all,
> >
> > Are there functions in ofbiz to get:
> >
> >1. the name of the Day given a particular date? And equally to get the
> >abreviation?, E.g 'Sunday' > 'Sun';
> >2. the name of the Month given a particular month number (derived from
> >either a date/timestamp or month number)? And equally so to get the
> >abbreviation? E.g. 'January' > 'Jan'?
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
> > *Apache Directory , PMC Member*
> > Apache Incubator , committer
> > *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without
> privileges)
> > since 2008*
> > Apache Steve , committer
> >
>

Re: Day name and Month Name

[Deepak Dixit]

Hi Pierre,

You can use SimpleDateFormat or DateFormatSymbols class to achieve your
requirements

Kind Regards,


On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 4:52 PM Pierre Smits  wrote:

> HI all,
>
> Are there functions in ofbiz to get:
>
>1. the name of the Day given a particular date? And equally to get the
>abreviation?, E.g 'Sunday' > 'Sun';
>2. the name of the Month given a particular month number (derived from
>either a date/timestamp or month number)? And equally so to get the
>abbreviation? E.g. 'January' > 'Jan'?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *Apache Trafodion , Vice President*
> *Apache Directory , PMC Member*
> Apache Incubator , committer
> *Apache OFBiz , contributor (without privileges)
> since 2008*
> Apache Steve , committer
>

Fwd: [PROPOSAL] Enable entity timestamp fields

[Deepak Dixit]

I think it's removed while converting find generic ftl to form widget
at OFBIZ-9217

>>Was it intentional? If yes what was the reason?

I think it's not intentional, form widget auto-fields-entity exclude the
stamp filed, that's why it's not rendering on webtools find generic page.

Kind Regards,
Deepak Dixit


On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:57 PM Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

> Hi Pawan,
>
> Seems to make sense, do you know when (by which commit) it has been
> removed. Was it intentional? If yes what was the reason?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 19/04/2019 à 18:03, Pawan Verma a écrit :
> > Hello  Devs,
> >
> > While working on a Production environment, I have found that for some
> > reason entity timestamp fields are disabled at Search Results screen in
> > Trunk and the previous release branch. It is available at View Value
> > screen. It was enabled in Release 16.11.
> >
> > These fields are helpful for developers to get the idea about when the
> row
> > in the entity is created/updated. Extremely helpful while working on the
> > Production environment.
> >
> > I propose to reenable these fields. Views/suggestions are most welcome.
> >
>