+1 make sense.
Thanks Aditya, Feel free to open ticket for this change. Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit www.hotwaxsystems.com On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jacques Le Roux < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Jacques > > > > Le 08/05/2017 à 08:32, Aditya Sharma a écrit : > >> Thanks Scott for the link :) >> >> It completely makes sense to me now with what David said there. >> >> They are intentionally not used in other parts of the project as >> validation >> >>> is >>> best in the logic layer, and not in the data layer >>> >>> If those field types serve no purpose then it is better to remove them >> to avoid any future confusions. >> >> Can I start working towards it then? >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Aditya Sharma >> Enterprise Software Engineer >> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. >> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ >> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> >> >> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Guys for the links, >>> >>> I also agree we can now remove the useless id-ne, id-long-ne and >>> id-vlong-ne field-types (ie replace by corresponding id field-types) >>> We also need to clean the related embedded documentation. Like for >>> instance for "not-null" in fieldtypemodel.xsd >>> For the rest let it be, I don't think there is much more documentation >>> about that anyway. >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 04/05/2017 à 06:20, Scott Gray a écrit : >>> >>> Chances are the field type was left for backwards compatibility. I'm ok >>>> with it being removed though. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 4 May 2017 at 15:32, Taher Alkhateeb <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hmmm I was actually rethinking about this, and this reminds me somewhat >>>> of >>>> >>>>> the "Bounded context" concept from DDD. Some services might want to >>>>> validate while others don't on certain fields depending on context, and >>>>> hence delegating that validation to services makes sense (no domain >>>>> exists >>>>> in OFBiz). >>>>> >>>>> The problem of the existence of id-ne lingers though. It's putting >>>>> unneceasary cognitive strain on users to figure out what is it and what >>>>> to >>>>> do with it. Also, this means no validation can happen for entity-auto >>>>> CRUD >>>>> services. >>>>> >>>>> So, I'm a bit on the fence, leaning slightly towards removing id-ne, >>>>> but >>>>> I >>>>> think we must choose one of: >>>>> 1- removing id-ne >>>>> 2- reintroducing validation >>>>> >>>>> On May 4, 2017 3:10 AM, "Scott Gray" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Took a while to dig it out but here it is: >>>>> >>>>>> http://ofbiz.markmail.org/thread/c6ee3ewyo6jpik7k >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not as in-depth as I'd hoped, but it was purposefully removed all >>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> same. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3 May 2017 at 17:42, Aditya Sharma <[email protected] >>>>>> om> >>>>>> 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/> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >
