Sanjay6 G wrote: > Hi Jacques, > Thanks for your reply. > I agree with you that by creating a new category and associating all > products on which price rules has to be applied can help me achieve the > objective. But i feel this way we are adding one more step in the business > process and making the journey of merchandiser long. Merchandiser would > first be required to create a category and associates all products with > the category first and then proceed with creating the price rule and use > this category as the input category in price rule. > Also you mentioned ' group your products by categories', as multiple > products can't be associated in a price rule similarly multiple categories > also can't be associated in the price rule. Hence still if a merchandiser > has to apply a price rule on products which are belonging/associated to > multiple categories, he first need to create a new category and associate > all product with the new category and use this category to create the > price rule. > I think the price rule applies 'AND' operation if multiple inputs are > added in a price rule.
Actually you don't "think it". It's clearly stated in the Edit Price Rule screen, where a sentence says: <<If multiple conditions are entered they are tested logically as and AND statement. Therefore all Conditions must be TRUE for the price rule to execute (same for actions)>> >Should the engine not apply 'OR' condition if the > input parameter like product, category, catalog, party are same and should > apply 'AND' condition if there is a difference between the input condition > in a price rule like category & party. This would need a new development. Feel free to create a Jira and contribute a patch Jacques > Regards > Sanjay Kumar Gupta > > > > From: > Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> > To: > [email protected] > Date: > 09/15/2013 10:36 PM > Subject: > Re: Multiple association of products in single price rule- Defect or > feature limitation? > > > > Why don't you group your products by categories and apply the prices on > them? > > Jacques
