Thanks for the report and proposed fix James, I am going to review this and fix
it.
Regards,
Jacopo
On Feb 22, 2010, at 5:27 PM, james_sg wrote:
>
> It would be good if someone can commited the following bug fix
>
> Change from
>
>
>
>> if (percScrapFactor.compareTo(bdHundred.negate()) > 0 &&
>> percScrapFactor.compareTo(bdHundred.negate()) < 0) {
>>
>
> to
>
>
>
>> if (percScrapFactor.compareTo(bdHundred.negate()) > 0 &&
>> percScrapFactor.compareTo(bdHundred) < 0) {
>>
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
> james_sg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> if (percScrapFactor.compareTo(bdHundred.negate()) > 0 &&
>>> percScrapFactor.compareTo(bdHundred.negate
>>> ()) < 0)
>>>
>> When the above condition fails,
>>
>>
>>> oneChildNode.setScrapFactor(percScrapFactor);
>>>
>> will set the scrap factor as 1, thus ignoring the original scrap factor
>> value.
>>
>> This is a bug.
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n4.nabble.com/Scrap-Factor-tp1562477p1564712.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
