To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Could you remove me from the mailing list? Thanks Bill William Cunningham 15 Bernard Avenue Barrington, RI 02806 401-575-9164 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On May 3, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Aditya Sharma <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Scott, As there is very less information available with the commit I found it quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out something. Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well? Thanks & Regards, Aditya Sharma Enterprise Software Engineer HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma < [email protected]> wrote: Hi Taher, Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and default to false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and will give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs. My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However! the validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the database level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the validation attributes and how they apply. Thanks & Regards, Aditya Sharma Enterprise Software Engineer HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray <[email protected]> wrote: It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before deciding how to proceed. Regards Scott On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb" <[email protected]> wrote: I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off. My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However! the validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the database level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the validation attributes and how they apply. On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma < [email protected]> wrote: Hi, While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for "*id*" or " *id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very enriching discussion. http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types- td2251546.html As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value. I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I found that almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and *java-type* for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that not-empty constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields. I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne" field type but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database level. When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate elements were removed from fieldtype*.xml files. http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708 But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed whether there was some implementation that took its place for those validations. To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity having a non-primary key "id-ne" field. I found that "*Picklist*" entity has a field *shipmentMethodTypeId* as "id- ne" type. When we *create a picklist* for an order from Facility Manager, *shipmentMethodTypeId* can be *empty*. If my explorations are correct currently there is no difference between "id" and "id-ne" at the implementation level and there should be a Jira for it. If I missed out something, can someone please enlighten me with that and help me understanding it well. Thanks & Regards, Aditya Sharma Enterprise Software Engineer HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/>
