Re: [VOTE] Apache OFBiz 18.12.02 (second attempt)

+1 $ ./verify-ofbiz-release.sh apache-ofbiz-18.12.02.zip sha check of file: apache-ofbiz-18.12.02.zip Using sha file: apache-ofbiz-18.12.02.zip.sha512 apache-ofbiz-18.12.02.zip: BED7D644 ED80DDE3 C94FDD53 473E49DD 5A29CF84 0FFC53D5 2CDBA1F3 FFE5F8B8 48DF123E EB816159 708C01A8 31ECBF7F D7476CD3

[VOTE] Apache OFBiz 18.12.02 (second attempt)

This is the second vote thread to publish "Apache OFBiz 18.12.02", the second release from the release18.12 branch. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-18.12.02.zip * KEYS: text file with keys *

Re: PartyRole usage in OFBiz

Le 16/11/2021 à 15:57, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Functionally (and technically per current design), you can not have the existence of a PartyRelationship record without the context of the Party and the RoleType record (a PartyRole record) for both to and from You are mistaken about "(a

EntityNameRole (was re: PartyNameRole)

Hi Jacques, All, My apologies. I should have pulled it out of the originating thread. Doing so now. See inline. Met vriendelijke groet, Pierre Smits *Proud* *contributor** of* Apache OFBiz since 2008 (without privileges) Proud contributor to the ASF since 2006

Re: PartyRole usage in OFBiz

Le 15/11/2021 à 14:39, Pierre Smits a écrit : Hi Jacques, All, You asked earlier in this thread what I meant with 'erroneous record going into the PartyRole table'. My apologies for not addressing this earlier. What I meant with that is this: any record that goes into the PartyRole table (or

Re: PartyRole usage in OFBiz

Hi Pierre, You missed the relation with PartyRole that all have (but PartyRole of course). I believe this relation, or rather the PKs in it, is the crux of the problem, as David suggested long ago. The rest sounds good to me. We need to understand is why 15(!) other EntityNameRoles  don't