Yes, I respect alternatives and discussion. I am trying to suggest something that would increase ofbiz usability and user satisfaction ( currently it is (very very very very very very)^n low ). And I am getting only opinions why should it *not* be they way I suggested and offers to do it some other way without getting pros and cons for both of the methods.
I would appreciate if you told me: should we implement it your way we could have these and these benefits but we shall have those and those problems and those and those performance penalties and these and these design issues BUT should we implement it the way I suggest we get blah and blah and we avoid blah and blah. But you are not :) So if you like to continue the discussion you have to put some more effort convincing me and the other users in the mail list about the preference of one method over another :) Peace and cheers Deyan On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 14:02 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > please note I am just giving alternatives to accomplish what you stated. > I am no way the end answer to this situation. > this is just a discussion. > > if you want to submit a patch with your idea then do so. > > > Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/20/2010 1:47 PM: > > ok, > > > > forget it ... > > > > On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 13:28 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > >> #1 how about the except is a try catch and the catch displays the last > >> two reocords related to the action from the EntityAuditLog. > >> > >> #2 have you looked at the myportal and how it shows only data done for > >> that login, that has roles and security? > >> you can have a page for EntityAuditLog that shows who changed what > >> relative to the page they are on. > >> > >> Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 11:20 PM: > >>> What about the entity locking and record based security ? > >>> > >>> 1) When we enable locking for an entity and there is an exception we > >>> would like to know who modified the data before us. > >>> > >>> 2) Users enter data and have security permission PARTY_CREATE. They > >>> don't have permission PARTY_UPDATE or PARTYMGR_ADMIN. However they often > >>> make mistakes in the entered data and they would like to correct them. > >>> This we can solve by adding a security permission > >>> PARTY_UPDATE_SELF_CREATED or so which allows updating records created by > >>> the same user. > >>> > >>> -- Deyan > >>> > >>> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 23:41 -0600, David E Jones wrote: > >>>> There's even a general auditing feature in the entity engine that saves > >>>> changes, who changed it, when, visitId, etc. See the EntityAuditLog > >>>> entity and the audit flag on the entity -> field element on an entity > >>>> definition. > >>>> > >>>> -David > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Deyan Tsvetanov wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Well for what is important there is already a changelog model - > >>>>> party_status, party_name_history. > >>>>> > >>>>> If something else is needed we should we create it on demand. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- Deyan > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 14:57 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>>>>> then if that ibnformaton is that important, should it not follow the > >>>>>> changelog model for audit, like changeprice? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 9:01 AM: > >>>>>>> Well I don't agree. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A classic example of entities relation is party<- person. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> One could update only the Person entity - change the lastName. So we > >>>>>>> update updated_by field only of the Person entity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> One could update only the party entity - change the status - so we > >>>>>>> update updated_by field only of the Party entity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I actually can not think of a table / entity that might not need the > >>>>>>> two > >>>>>>> fields. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Even if we take ENUMERATION_TYPE - it currently has created_stamp_tx > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> updated_stamp_tx - why should it not have updated_by and created_by as > >>>>>>> well ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- Deyan > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 08:50 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>>>>>>> an entity has a relationship with another entity. > >>>>>>>> so if the main entity is updated those in the relationship will be > >>>>>>>> tied > >>>>>>>> to the main entity and don't need the two fields. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> yes those that are only updated by person should have the two > >>>>>>>> fields, in > >>>>>>>> my opinion. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 8:42 AM: > >>>>>>>>>> Many entities data is not created without a dependence on another > >>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>> so those should not need those two fields. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This one i didn't understand :) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In general data is being updated either by a person ( user or an > >>>>>>>>> administrator or a consultant ) or by a process ( the system > >>>>>>>>> account ). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 08:29 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> there are many operations that are generated by the system levels, > >>>>>>>>>> such > >>>>>>>>>> as status change. I can see the entities that are affected solely > >>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>> users having those fields. > >>>>>>>>>> I can see some being added but not every entity. > >>>>>>>>>> Many entities data is not created without a dependence on another > >>>>>>>>>> one so > >>>>>>>>>> those should not need those two fields. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Deyan Tsvetanov sent the following on 7/19/2010 8:03 AM: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> another suggestion: to add 2 mandatory fields created_by and > >>>>>>>>>>> updated_by > >>>>>>>>>>> to all tables by default like created_stamp and updated_stamp. > >>>>>>>>>>> Currently > >>>>>>>>>>> there columns are added on demand in the entity definition but > >>>>>>>>>>> they are > >>>>>>>>>>> often needed. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Examples of usage: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1) status change - there is no created_by in the entity status > >>>>>>>>>>> table - > >>>>>>>>>>> party_status. > >>>>>>>>>>> In general customers would like to know who and when disabled the > >>>>>>>>>>> party > >>>>>>>>>>> and who re-enabled it. The same applies to orders, invoices, etc. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2) Another example for using these 2 columns is entity lock. When > >>>>>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>> EntityLockedException is thrown it would be nice to include the > >>>>>>>>>>> userLoginId of the user who updated the record as well as the > >>>>>>>>>>> time so we > >>>>>>>>>>> can notify the user: > >>>>>>>>>>> "The record you are trying to save has been updated by > >>>>>>>>>>> Administrator, > >>>>>>>>>>> The priviledged 5 minutes 32 secods ago. To cancel your request > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> reload the changes click reload. To go ahead and overwrite the > >>>>>>>>>>> changes > >>>>>>>>>>> done by Administrator click "Overwrite". " > >>>>>>>>>>> Or so ... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3) Record based security - users could be allowed to modify > >>>>>>>>>>> records they > >>>>>>>>>>> have created even without edit or admin permissions. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it would be very very helpful if these 2 columns are > >>>>>>>>>>> present > >>>>>>>>>>> by default, even if they allow null values to preserve the > >>>>>>>>>>> current code > >>>>>>>>>>> working. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- deyan > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > >
