About IDEMPIERE-2626 - changing Attribute Set Instance Exclude behavior

[Carlos Antonio Ruiz Gómez]

Hi community,

I'm peer reviewing the ticket IDEMPIERE-2626 contributed by Deepak.

The ticket makes sense to me although it changes the legacy behavior of the Attribute Set Exclude feature since compiere times.

Let me explain it further:
- since compiere times you can register table+sotrx definition in the "Attribute Set Exclude" to avoid the mandatoriness on a specific table and SO Trx, but also it stops the user from entering an ASI in the corresponding windows
- this way is explicit in the help of the table "Create a record, if you want to exclude the ability to enter Product Attribute Set information"

But, with ticket IDEMPIERE-2626 Deepak is suggesting a potential better use for that, instead of excluding entry it can allow entry, but just exclude the mandatoriness of the ASI.

For me it makes sense and the improvement seems harmless - but I would like to gather your opinion before deciding to integrate it.

What do you think?  Any collateral that we're not seeing?

Regards,

Carlos Ruiz

[Hiep Lq]

I think this improve make better, vote for it.

for keep old behavior, just make a script set display logic.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iDempiere" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to idempiere+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/idempiere/4a8b9e60-daba-43e3-8527-7b4ed1c31d08%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Lê Quý Hiệp
Email: hie...@hasuvimex.vn
Skype: admin.hasuvimex
Mobile: 0915277401

Company: Thanh Hoa Fishery Import - Export J.s.c  (Hasuvimex) DL 47

Add: Lot E, Le Mon Industrial Zone, Thanh Hoa, Vietnam

[Fernando Saavedra]

Friends:

May be this could be analized too.

We have had problems with ASI  with products that use guaranteedate.

For each new guaranteedate    saved new ASI at m_attributesetinstance 

then we create a function to verify if exists return  the same m_attributesetinstance_ID 

This is the function.

 public static int getMAttributeSetInstanceId(int m_attrinuteset_id, String guarantedate){

      int returnValue=0;

      int VLSValue=0;

      String consulta = "SELECT coalesce(max(at.m_attributesetinstance_id),0) as M_AttributeSetinstance_ID " +

          " FROM ADEMPIERE.m_attributesetinstance at " +

          " WHERE  " +

          "  at.m_attributeset_id = " +m_attrinuteset_id+

          " AND at.guaranteedate    = '" +guarantedate+

          "'  AND at.ad_client_id         = " + Env.getAD_Client_ID(Env.getCtx()) +

        "AND at.isactive        = 'Y' " ;

               try {

             PreparedStatement pstmt = DB.prepareStatement(consulta, null);

             //pstmt.setInt(1, Env.getAD_Client_ID(Env.getCtx()));

             ResultSet rs = pstmt.executeQuery();

             //System.out.println("getMAtributeSetInstanceId: " + consulta);

             while (rs.next()) {

              VLSValue=rs.getInt("M_AttributeSetinstance_ID");

             }

             rs.close();

             pstmt.close();

         } catch (SQLException ex) {

             Logger.getLogger(FLC_Utils.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);

         }

         if(VLSValue>0)

          return VLSValue;

         else 

          return returnValue;

      }

[Deepak Pansheriya (Logilite.com)]

Fernando,

Issue with your function is that it return same ASI for irrelevant of product.  though iDempiere has no direct relation ship with Product but normally ASI expect many to one relationship with product.

[Deepak Pansheriya (Logilite.com)]

One more thing I would like to change is the how ASI retrieved on ASI selection dialog from attribute set editor. 

Currently is looking only those in storage. Now we have storage cleanup script too. This means we may not able to see ASI which already shipped completely and came returns some time. 

I suggest when we do show all, it should bring from transaction records. or it should identify ASI to show from transaction and then it join to storage.

[Hiep Lq]

Hi Deepak.

i also wish this behavior. let me know what i can help.

[Deepak Pansheriya (Logilite.com)]

Heip,

I almost done. I can pass to you for testing and review. 

I have one question though, When we do show all, do we need to show it for locator ASI combination or do per ASI will be good enough.

[Hiep Lq]

Hi Deepak.

in my case, just show ASI don't need asi per locator.

for pass your patch to me, you can use my email hie...@hasuvimex.vn or attach in ticket, i will test it for you.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iDempiere" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to idempiere+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/idempiere/82556bb7-e454-4da8-b232-5e213b38f19e%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.