Thanks Scott, I will create Jira for this issue. I also think that the easiest way will be to delete existing adjustments when canceling order item. But I will stick only to changing the amount of all adjustments of the item to 0 because in situations when only part of the item is already shipped then there will be problems because of existing OrderAdjustmentBilling records. Do you think that this approach could be applied to promotional and shipping(if any) adjustments of the canceled order items?
Regards, Rashko Rejmer On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 22:22 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: > Hi Rashko > > I still think it would be easier to either delete the adjustment or change > the amount as necessary, mostly because it sounds like the easiest fix and I > can't think of any reason why the original values would need to be > maintained. If there's a good reason to keep them then that's fine, I just > can't think of it. > > Regards > Scott > > 2008/7/1 Rashko Rejmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hi Scott and all, > > > > Sorry for the late reply. Comments inline: > > > > On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 23:01 +1200, Scott Gray wrote: > > > > The status of the item is set to ITEM_CANCELLED and tax adjustments > > > are > > > > not removed. Instead of this it is created order header adjustment > > > that > > > > compensates order item sales tax adjustments. This was introduced in > > > > OFBIZ-461. The reason was that it was not possible to remove > > > > OrderAdjustment if one part of the adjustment is already > > > > invoiced(OrderAdjustmentBilling is present). > > > > > > > > > Instead of creating these balancing adjustments wouldn't it be ok to > > > just > > > update the OrderAdjustment with the new tax amount? > > > > I was wandering if it is not better to exclude all adjustments(tax, > > promotional) of fully canceled order items, from all order amount > > calculation methods (getOrderSubTotal, getOrderTotal, ...). This way the > > canceled items will be present in the order, only to keep history of > > order changes, and they will not be taken into account in all order > > amount calculations. > > > > In this case there would not be necessary to create any balancing > > adjustments at all. > > > > Regards, > > Rashko Rejmer > > > >
