OEM ID is for example the OEM marketing model number, say like an Apple MacBook 
Mid 2013 had a OEM ID of A1465. 

Categories in OFbiz are a broad data structures that integrate well with lots 
of things including the pricing engine.  Parts get tricky, because a part 
itself can have a OEM, the thing the part goes into can have a different OEM, 
and the supplier you get the part from could be a third party.  

So if you have a tire that is for Ford cars, make a special Ford category, then 
in the setup for that category associate it with your Ford party if you need 
that level of data. 

(Product/Catalog Manger -> Category -> Parties 
(/catalog/control/EditCategory?productCategoryId=CATEGORYNAME). 

Since Categories in OFbiz are many-to-many, this gives you a lot of 
flexibility. You’ll end up with at least two hierarchies then, one for your OEM 
brands and one for your functional categories. 

Suppliers is where you’d track the actual supplier for a given part, which can 
often differ from the manufacturer like if it’s after-market or via a 
distributor. 

—P

> On Jun 15, 2017, at 3:52 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> If the OEM field doesn't really do anything what is the best field to
> utilize to identify a part belongs to a specific Manufacurer or OEM?
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Price List in Ofbiz - Robust?
> From: Paul Mandeltort <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, June 15, 2017 1:22 pm
> To: [email protected]
> 
> I’ll chime in that the OEM ID field kind of just sits there on its own
> and isn’t integrated well with the rest of OFbiz. It would be a better
> integration to use a special category or feature for those products,
> then you can integrate the price rule as you said. 
> 
> One other caveat, try your best to minimize the price rules in the
> engine, they can get real confusing real quick. 
> 
> —P
> 
>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> James,
>> 
>> I am a bit puzzled with what you're trying to achieve.So you're trying to
>> display a discounted price for products of a given OEM party, correct?
>> 
>> Indeed, the Price Rule functionality is intended to deliver that.
>> Unfortunately, the OOTB functionality is limited to a number of condition
>> parameters (see the enum elements that are associated with [1]) You'll need
>> to add the OEM condition to that set.
>> 
>> Then you'll need to build the condition - and the appropriate recalc
>> actions - in the Price Rule screens in you implementation (as an ref, see
>> [2]) and then test whether you get the desired outcome.
>> 
>> 
>> [1] <EnumerationType description="Product Price Input Parameter" enumTypeId=
>> "PROD_PRICE_IN_PARAM" hasTable="N" parentTypeId="PROD_PRICE"/>
>> [2]
>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/catalog/control/FindProductPriceRules
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Pierre Smits
>> 
>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>> 
>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Anybody know if this is possible OTB with OFBIZ?
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Price List in Ofbiz - Robust?
>>> From: <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Tue, June 13, 2017 9:41 am
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> 
>>> Team - I have always heard that pricing in Ofbiz is pretty robust and I
>>> am trying to figure out how to make Ofbiz handle the following scenario
>>> 
>>> Let's say I have a suggested retail price of $20 in my price list, $10
>>> Costs, and Margin of 30% (this needs to be able to change frequently)
>>> 
>>> I want to create a price rule that says the following:
>>> 
>>> For ALL items for a given OEM ID (listed on the main catalog page)
>>> I want the following calculation
>>> 
>>> Retail-((Retail-Cost)*Margin)
>>> or
>>> 
>>> 20-((20-10)x.3)= 18
>>> 
>>> Where in price rules can you create calculations like this? Also are
>>> these prices actually stored in the database?
>>> 
>>> Any help is really appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 

Reply via email to