Hi Jacques,

Yes, the data model is pretty good, the processing not so much. This is not
the only place in OFBiz where that is so. 

Look at 

https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/ofbiz/trunk/applications/accounting/servicedef/services_tax.xml?r=1030778#to39

The calcTax service specifically expects promotion and shipping amounts, not
adjustments in general. I don't see what's so special about those two.

Cheers

Paul Foxworthy


Jacques Le Roux wrote
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I guess there was an intentional will to separate promotions and shipping.
> The reason is certainly a quite obvious simplication and I can agree on
> adding new OrderAdjustmentType, we have already quite a bit
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Promotion" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="PROMOTION_ADJUSTMENT" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Replacement" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="REPLACE_ADJUSTMENT" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Discount" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="DISCOUNT_ADJUSTMENT" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Donation" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="DONATION_ADJUSTMENT" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Fee" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="FEE" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Miscellaneous Charges" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="MISCELLANEOUS_CHARGE" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Sales Tax" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="SALES_TAX" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="VAT Tax (not added to totals)"
> hasTable="N" orderAdjustmentTypeId="VAT_TAX" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="VAT Price Correction" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="VAT_PRICE_CORRECT" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Shipping and Handling" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="SHIPPING_CHARGES" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Surcharge" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="SURCHARGE_ADJUSTMENT" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Additional Feature" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="ADDITIONAL_FEATURE" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Warranty" hasTable="N"
> orderAdjustmentTypeId="WARRANTY_ADJUSTMENT" parentTypeId=""/>
> <OrderAdjustmentType description="Marketing Package Adjustment"
> hasTable="N" orderAdjustmentTypeId="MKTG_PKG_AUTO_ADJUST"
> parentTypeId=""/>
> We have already OrderAdjustment.orderAdjustmentTypeId what do we need
> more?
> 
> Jacques
> 
> From: "Paul Foxworthy" &lt;

> [email protected]

> &gt;
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Adjustments can be for shipping, promotion (usually a discount when some
>> condition is met), and tax.
>> 
>> Shipping and promotion can be per item or once for the entire order.
>> Per-item adjustments are associated with an item, so if the item is
>> changed
>> or removed, it's easy to update or remove corresponding adjustments.
>> 
>> Given we need per-item adjustments, per-order adjustments should be as
>> similar as possible, so I would argue should be adjustments and not
>> items.
>> If there are no products, there's no order and there should be no
>> adjustments. I would only want to see a shipping product if my company is
>> in
>> the shipping business. If I'm in some other industry, my customers would
>> never just order a shipping service from me.
>> 
>> I do think we should treat adjustments in a more general way, rather than
>> assuming that shipping, promotion and tax are all we'll ever encounter.
>> So
>> any adjustment would have an adjustment type, we can create new ones if
>> the
>> need ever arises, and we just communicate one collection of adjustments
>> for
>> each item and one for the order, rather than splitting out promotion and
>> shipping.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Paul Foxworthy
>> 
>> 
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote
>>> This means also some code changes, but yes maybe...
>>> 
>>> Jacques
>>> 
>>> From: "Adrian Crum" &lt;
>> 
>>> adrian.crum@
>> 
>>> &gt;
>>>>I have wondered that myself. It would make more sense if shipping was a 
>>>> non-stock product.
>>>> 
>>>> -Adrian
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/25/2013 2:21 AM, Michael Alleblas wrote:
>>>>> Why are shipping charges an adjustment as opposed to a service and
>>>>> added
>>>>> just like any other product? This would allow taxation to be
>>>>> calculated
>>>>> as
>>>>> simply as it is for products.
>>>>>
>>>>> I may be missing something here, and I presume it may pertain to the
>>>>> US
>>>>> taxation model. I am from Australia and we operate under the VAT/GST
>>>>> model.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Michael A
>>>>>
>>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----
>> --
>> Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
>> http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/
>> 
>> Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
>> http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
>> 
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Shipping-Adjustments-vs-Products-tp4639135p4639673.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.





-----
--
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
http://www.coherentsoftware.com.au/

Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/

--
View this message in context: 
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Shipping-Adjustments-vs-Products-tp4639135p4639703.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to