Jonathon,
> Jacques, > > Jacques said: > > <<So as I thought it's better to handle different currencies in different > > stores for now. Am I missing something here ? >> > > Is that always true ? Is it a recommended best practice to do so (having 1 > > store by currency) ? Are there other scenarios, future scenarios ? > > I've seen applications that use just 1 base/core currency for the entire > store, and just do a > real-time calculation (say with oanda exchange rate server) when a > non-base/non-core currency is used. Thanks , I did not know oanda. > Personally, I don't see many stores handling > 1 currency. Taking in "fixed > prices in foreign > currencies" is actually quite bad for business, because that subjects the > business to forex > fluctuations. > > Imagine having a store with fixed price tags in EUR and in a currency > (fictitious for > illustration) WildMoney that fluctuates like mad. Now imagine shoppers coming > in with WildMoney > only on days when WildMoney is wildly weak against the EUR. This store will > be losing a lot of money! Yes I agree, and moreover sometimes prices are different according to countries (typical for luxury goods). But in some case it may usefull to use an exchange rate server. > > Perhaps it's only a matter of words, replacing "Default Currency Uom Id" by > > "Currency Uom Id for this store" and explaining more with an > > HTML-title-tooltip might be enough ? > > More than enough. In-application (in vivo) help texts are a lot more > user-friendly than docs > separated from the application (in vitro? assuming the application is glass > :) ). > > > Also I'm here trying to grab knowledge at the User level (unlike for > instance > > Jonathon wich claims to reverse) and perhaps OFBiz was not conceived in > this > > spirit. That might explain the lack of *advanced* user's documentation > > (advanced documentation not user). Or simply ERPs can't be or rather are > > difficult to be documented for users (I'm not an ERP veterans) ? > > ERPs are naturally complex, with different flavors/functionalities for > different businesses/companies. > > Complex as they may be, companies that employ ERPs (whether coded in-house in > PHP, or designed by > vendors in OOTB form) often do/must document their usage of those ERPs. Even > if they use OOTB > products, there will be parts of the product they don't use, or use in a > "special" way. They'd > need to document that as well. > > We really should document the ERP part of OFBiz. I currently refer to OFBiz > as 2 parts: OFBiz-ERP > and OFBiz-core. Functionnal name (marketing name ;o) for applications and framework. Are new names really needed ? > About effort in documentation, it is always significant or at least > substantial. Say we write some > program codes, test it, debug it, and "voila! it works", and we leave it at > that. Then we need to > document our program at the "functional level" (ie, "yeah, it seems to work > this way from a user's > POV"). And if our coding style is not declarative and clean, we then need to > review our codes to > make sure it correctly goes from "A to B to C" rather than "A to B to A to B > to C". > > And that's just one function in our program, or 1 small module in a larger > program. We repeat the > above for other modules. And eventually, we document the cross-references > between modules. And > this is the difficult part. > > Example: > "If Jonathon bows, Jacques coughs. If Jacques coughs, David claps. If David > claps, Jonathon > dances. If Jonathon dances, Jacques coughs." Hmm. Now how do we document this? > > We can try a "breadth-first" approach in documentation. Make sure all > developers understand the > codes first. Then with spare resources, we make sure all users understand the > application. Then we > try to make the higher management (who won't even need to work, much less USE > OFBiz?) understand > the purchase of the application. > > (I know, real-world business and marketing techniques mess up that order.) For the moment my only concern is tho help first time user to better understand backend UI and principles of use. > > The most consistent behaviour is obtained by IE :(. Here Firefox (All > Mozilla > > browser I guess) is not a good candidate. I desesperately looked for an > > extension (or even an hack, mm...mm) but did not find any. > > I agree with your assessment of IE vs Firefox. Firefox isn't entirely > completely implemented; some > UIs do not render correctly yet. IE quirks and errors are more numerous than > Firefox, but is more > widely used. If I code things correctly and that happens to suit Firefox 99% > of the time, I'll see > broken UIs in IE. > > I've long given up wishing that IE does not force us to code things "wrongly". I was only speaking of the tooltip aspect. Actually, Opera has also an interesting behaviour because the tooltip is not hidden after 5 sec : you easily can read a 1000 char. (or more) explanations ! The only drawback is that with Opera you can't defines your own new lines returns. This because if we want to use tooltip to give more informations to user (backoffice only) we may recommend to use a specific browser, why not ? BTW, will anybody complain if I begin to document backend UI thru tooltips ? Jacques > Jonathon > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > David, > > > > I try to understand things deeper. Many questions... > > > > I said : > > <<So as I thought it's better to handle different currencies in different > > stores for now. Am I missing something here ? >> > > Is that always true ? Is it a recommended best practice to do so > > (having 1 store by currency) ? Are there other scenarios, > > future scenarios ? > > > > You said : > >> No. The price stuff will look for prices according to the currency > >> set on the ProductStore. > > and > >>> NO! Not totally correct. In this case of the ProductStore currency was > >>> USD then the virtual product's prices would be used. If the ProductStore > >>> currency was EUR, then the variant product's prices would be used. > > > > So why the string "Default Currency Uom Id" for the currency field in > > Catalog/Store ? Would not "Currency Uom Id" be more > > appropriate as this data looks like more a constraint (can't be overriden), > > at least for products ? Are there other reasons to put > > *Default* ? > > > > In Undersun User Documentation (thanks David and Andy for this !) I read in > > explanation of the field "Default Currency Uom Id" : > > "Which national currency will be used if none is > > specified.". Hence "Default" I suppose. But it seems not to act as a > > default value from what you stated above David. On the > > contrary, it specifies the currency that will be chosen between several. I > > use chosen because I can't see a case where "no currency > > is specified" (and where a default value will then be used). Because when > > you define a price a currency is always set. And > > currencies are only used in prices, isn'it ? > > > > I suppose also that "Product Store Group" has no effect on currency ? Or in > > other words, may the "Product Store Group" concept be > > used to deal with multi-currencies ? > > > > I understand that a product may be shared between stores thru > > catalogs/categories and may have prices in each currency needed by > > each store. In such cases, one more time "Default Currency Uom Id" defines > > the currency of the store and not "a default currency for > > this store if none is specified", isn'it ? > > > > I agree with Jonathon that the error message is too general and should be > > changed to help users identifie the real origin of the > > problem. But note that this is at the functionnal level. Idid not look at > > the code. Perhaps under the hood it's more complicated... > > Especially if the routine that calculates prices is widely generalised. > > > > Perhaps it's only a matter of words, replacing "Default Currency Uom Id" by > > "Currency Uom Id for this store" and explaining more > > with an HTML-title-tooltip might be enough ? > > > > Also I'm here trying to grab knowledge at the User level (unlike for > > instance Jonathon wich claims to reverse) and perhaps OFBiz was > > not conceived in this spirit. That might explain the lack of *advanced* > > user's documentation (advanced documentation not user). Or > > simply ERPs can't be or rather are difficult to be documented for users > > (I'm not an ERP veterans) ? > > > > Subtle slight nuances, great effects... Everybody still there ? Not sure > > even if I am... > > > > Actually what I'm trying to do is to find a way to put the most possible > > "advanced and accurate documentation" easily at reach of > > users, that's all. In order to do so I tested the rendering of HTML field > > title attribute (tooltip in widgets) in 4 browsers on > > Windows. > > > > Browser length max duration wrap lines > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Firefox 1.5.0.9 80 char 5 sec never > > IE 6 at least 1000 5 sec if in source > > IE 7 at least 1000 5 sec if in source > > Opera 9.02. at least 1000 no limit always > > > > The most consistent behaviour is obtained by IE :(. Here Firefox (All > > Mozilla browser I guess) is not a good candidate. I > > desesperately > > looked for an extension (or even an hack, mm...mm) but did not find any. > > > > It might be interesting to have behaviours on Linux (Mmm..Gnome, KDE, > > XFCE,...) and Mac > > > > Note also that title used as tooltip is often not recommended for > > accessiblity reasons (many screenreaders don't read title text by > > default). But users may change this default. > > http://www.sf.id.au/WE05/indexa.html > > > > Interesting article on <abbr> tag also : > > http://www.alistapart.com/articles/hattrick (takes some time to read) > > > > Thanks > > > > Jacques > > > > > >> Haha! Comical tragedies. Sigh. > >> > >> Thanks for that very concise and definitive "documentation" for this > >> aspect, David. > >> > >> I can understand how Jacques (and me) could've easily been misled by our > >> test cases; outcome a > >> little too ambiguous (no proper warning messages?). Digging into codes > >> directly would've avoided > >> that "misunderstanding" between us (users) and OFBiz (application). > >> > >> Jonathon > >> > >> David E. Jones wrote: > >>> On Feb 2, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jonathon, David, > >>>> > >>>>> David, > >>>>> > >>>>> As I understand from Jacques issue descriptions: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Price set for Virtual product in USD > >>>>> 2. Price set for related Variant product in EUR > >>>>> 3. Price for Variant is not used at all. > >>>>> > >>>>> If that's the case, it is a bug. > >>>>> > >>>>> I haven't tested this out. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jacques, is the above correct? > >>>> Yes totaly correct. > >>> NO! Not totally correct. In this case of the ProductStore currency was > >>> USD then the virtual product's prices would be used. If the ProductStore > >>> currency was EUR, then the variant product's prices would be used. > >>> > >>> This all sounds like a misunderstanding. > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>>> David answered > >>>> <<The only reason to put a price on the virtual product is to act as a > >>>> default, so it is totally optional and for many product sets may not > >>>> exist at all. That is true in general, and could even vary by > >>>> currency depending on what people want to do with it. In other words, > >>>> I don't think we should put in a check or requirement like that > >>>> because there are perfectly valid scenarios where you would not want > >>>> that.>> > >>>> > >>>> Mmm... Strange that a default value might not be overriden in some > >>>> case, isn'it ? > >>>> > >>>> BTW I agree that it's not a big deal. Just wanted a better interface, > >>>> could this requirement break something ? > >>>> > >>>> I just tested without prices for virtual and a price in USD for a > >>>> variant and another variant with EUR for the same store having USD > >>>> as default currency. The variant with EUR price is not accepted : > >>>> * Could not find a valid price for the product with ID > >>>> [WG-9943-B4], not adding to cart. > >>>> > >>>> So as I thought it's better to handle different currencies in > >>>> different stores for now. Am I missing something here ? Else this last > >>>> fact close this discussion and should be reported as best user practice. > >>>> > >>>> Because I guess we need more user doc than dev at this moment... > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jacques > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Jonathon > >>>>> > >>>>> David E. Jones wrote: > >>>>>> I don't see any problem here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The code looks for price information on the product. If no price > >>>>>> information for a certain type, currency, etc is not found and the > >>>>>> product is a variant it will find the corresponding virtual product and > >>>>>> look for the price information there. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What else could/would it do? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What is the bug here? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -David > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Feb 1, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Finally, I want to make an abstract of what I understand : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Variants herit prices from virtual. > >>>>>>> Variants may override prices from virtual, hence have different > >>>>>>> currencies than virtual. > >>>>>>> But this last functionnality (regarding currency at least) is not > >>>>>>> working yet. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is that correct ? If yes, I will open a Jira issue for this peculiar > >>>>>>> case where I will propose to restrict currency in variants to > >>>>>>> virtual's, for the moment. > >>>>>>> Of course I understand that in a perfect world we should support > >>>>>>> different currencies for different variants. But I guess this can > >>>>>>> wait... Because I'm only reasoning at the businness level for the > >>>>>>> moment. And I guess at the technological level things may be less > >>>>>>> clear. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks for your attention > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jacques > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jonathon, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jacques, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I was asking myself, in a principe of reality, if we should not, > >>>>>>>>>> for the > >>>>>>>>>> moment, restrict variants currencies to their virtual's. > >>>>>>>>> Agreed. This will tie up that "loose end". Rather than having > >>>>>>>>> "undefined behavior" (for multiple > >>>>>>>>> currencies), we should at least let users know that their virtual > >>>>>>>>> products' currencies count and > >>>>>>>>> the related variants' don't. Or better yet, prevent users from using > >>>>>>>>> a different currency for > >>>>>>>>> variants. > >>>>>>>> Later was what I was suggesting. it's easy to do, in one word : > >>>>>>>> pragmatic ! I think I will create at least a Jira issue for this > >>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>> nobody disagree (with strong arguments ;o) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> A sticky issue: which currency/price takes precedence, variant or > >>>>>>>>>>> virtual? > >>>>>>>>>>> I'd say variant prices should override virtual. > >>>>>>>>>> Yes variants should override. But has this a sense ? Because > >>>>>>>>>> virtuals are > >>>>>>>>>> never used as product, they are abstract (in Oriented Object > >>>>>>>>>> sense). So I > >>>>>>>>>> wonder if having a currency different for virtual and variants > >>>>>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>>>> sense. Having variants with different currencies is another > >>>>>>>>>> problem... > >>>>>>>>> Hmm. In OO sense, it doesn't make sense that virtuals have a price > >>>>>>>>> even. > >>>>>>>> Yes true, but difficult to manage because product UI is generalised > >>>>>>>> and morevover because of your point below. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> However, in > >>>>>>>>> user-interface sense, users would want to have a "standard price" > >>>>>>>>> set for all variants, for ease > >>>>>>>>> of use if for nothing else. > >>>>>>>>> Hence, I can see why some users might want to tie currency/price to > >>>>>>>>> virtuals. > >>>>>>>> Yes true, OO heritage ;o). So remains the case of different > >>>>>>>> currencies for different variants. But is that realistic (this is a > >>>>>>> real > >>>>>>>> question for real people) ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well, at least we share/discuss what we know so that others can grab > >>>>>>>>> our info and enhance OFBiz, > >>>>>>>>> though we ourselves have no time to fix this issue. :P > >>>>>>>> We may hope so, but I would prefer to do job because else I will wait > >>>>>>>> for sure. I just want to know if nobody see drawbacks in > >>>>>>>> arguments above, or have better ideas ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jacques > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jonathon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Jonathon, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> From: "Jonathon -- Improov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think David's point about supporting multiple currencies is > >>>>>>>>>>> valid, ie OFBiz should operate that > >>>>>>>>>>> way. It'll be nice to be able to use different currencies for > >>>>>>>>>>> different variants (eg. some sold in > >>>>>>>>>>> some countries but not in others). > >>>>>>>>>> Yes I totally agree. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> However, I strongly suspect that's not exactly how it works now. > >>>>>>>>>> I agree too. Yes for the moment people wanting to deal with > >>>>>>>>>> multiple currencies create a store by currency, I guess. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if anyone needs me to > >>>>>>>>>>> help in research; my current project doesn't handle more than 1 > >>>>>>>>>>> currency... yet. > >>>>>>>>>> I would create a Jira issue for this. This is not a priority for me > >>>>>>>>>> either. And I suspect that it may be a large task to do. > >>>>>>> So > >>>>>>>>>> that's why I was asking myself, in a principe of reality, if we > >>>>>>>>>> should not, for the moment, restrict variants currencies to > >>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>> virtual's. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> A sticky issue: which currency/price takes precedence, variant or > >>>>>>>>>>> virtual? I'd say variant prices > >>>>>>>>>>> should override virtual. > >>>>>>>>>> Yes variants should override. But has this a sense ? Because > >>>>>>>>>> virtuals are never used as product, they are abstract (in > >>>>>>> Oriented > >>>>>>>>>> Object sense). So I wonder if having a currency different for > >>>>>>>>>> virtual and variants have a sense. Having variants with > >>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>> currencies is another problem... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your thoughts > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Jacques > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jonathon > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that it should work like I tried to use it or that we > >>>>>>>>>>>> should make it work, or ? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:45 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Problem in Virtual products > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is to support prices in multiple currencies > >>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -David > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally after my apologies I thought a bit about this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not restrict variants currency to the one set in virtual ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if someone set variants prices to another currency it will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be used. And this can fool an user as I have been. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I used euro and not dollar for variant prices. So yes, you are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right Jacopo and sorry > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:02 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Problem in Virtual products > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vamsi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I am selecting configuration it is not showing the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product price with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there are no specific prices for variants. If you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> price for a variants this will have no effect. The price > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual product will be used. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that the variant price is used if set, it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon as you add the variant to the cart. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tested it before by creating a default price for WG-9943-B3 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was not applied but the virtual price was applied. BTW the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual had also Competitive and List Prices. So I just > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tested by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding Competitive and List Prices to the variant WG-9943-B3 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am'I missing something here, promotions, prices rules ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >
