Supply Method Name
Cédric Krier
For the new module sale_supply [1], I have added on sale line a supply
method which could be:
- On Stock
- On Purchase
But as the product on the sale line could be a service, I find the "On
Stock" is not really good.
So I'm looking for suggestions of better names?
[1] http://codereview.tryton.org/97001/
Thanks,
--
Cédric Krier
B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Email/Jabber: cedric...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
Telesight
For the new module sale_supply [1], I have added on sale line a supply
method which could be:- On Stock
- On PurchaseBut as the product on the sale line could be a service, I find the "On
Stock" is not really good.
So I'm looking for suggestions of better names?[1] http://codereview.tryton.org/97001/
You can use the term for a tangible product.
You can not put a service "in stock΅ but you can make a reservation for hours or people who will deliver that service.
You could use it for "reserved hours of service" or to reserve the hours for a person behind the service. Like in project planning you can dedicate hours at forehand.
Anthony
Mathias Behrle
+0100):
> On 05/11/11 06:33 -0700, Telesight wrote:
> >
> >
> > > For the new module sale_supply [1], I have added on sale line a supply
> > > method which could be:
> > >
> > > - On Stock
> > > - On Purchase
> > >
> > > But as the product on the sale line could be a service, I find the "On
> > > Stock" is not really good.
> > > So I'm looking for suggestions of better names?
> > >
> > > [1] http://codereview.tryton.org/97001/
> > >
> > > What to think of the term "Reserved"?
> > You can use the term for a tangible product.
> >
> > You can not put a service "in stock΅ but you can make a reservation for
> > hours or people who will deliver that service.
> > You could use it for "reserved hours of service" or to reserve the hours
> > for a person behind the service. Like in project planning you can dedicate
> > hours at forehand.
>
> I don't think "reserved" is a good term because it gives the wrong assumption
> that the product is reserved (allocated).
>
"available"?
--
Mathias Behrle
MBSolutions
Gilgenmatten 10 A
D-79114 Freiburg
Tel: +49(761)471023
Fax: +49(761)4770816
http://m9s.biz
UStIdNr: DE 142009020
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
Dr. Axel Braun
Am Samstag, 5. November 2011 schrieb Telesight:
[..]
> > What to think of the term "Reserved"?
>
> You can use the term for a tangible product.
>
> You can not put a service "in stock΅ but you can make a reservation for
> hours or people who will deliver that service.
> You could use it for "reserved hours of service" or to reserve the hours
> for a person behind the service. Like in project planning you can dedicate
> hours at forehand.
Mostly a product gets reserved from stock once it is allocated (delivery note
created but ot yet picked).
I support Matthias' proposal (available)
Cheers/Ax
--
Dr.-Ing. Axel K. Braun
Mobile: +49.173.7003.154
VoIP/Skype: axxite
PGP Fingerprint: CB03 964D 1CFA E87B AA63 53F3 1BD6 F53A EB48 EF22
Public Key available at http://www.axxite.com/axel....@gmx.de.asc
This mail was *not scanned* before sending.
It was sent from a secure Linux desktop.
Korbinian Preisler
> On 06/11/11 02:26 +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > * Betr.: " Re: [tryton] Re: Supply Method Name" (Sat, 5 Nov 2011 15:30:54
> > +0100):
> >
> > "available"?
>
> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
>
>
--
Korbinian Preisler
____________________________________
virtual things
Preisler & Spallek GbR
Munich - Aix-la-Chapelle
Windeckstr. 77
81375 Munich - Germany
Tel: +49 (89) 710 481 55
Fax: +49 (89) 710 481 56
Nicolas Évrard
>> On 06/11/11 02:26 +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>> > * Betr.: " Re: [tryton] Re: Supply Method Name" (Sat, 5 Nov 2011 15:30:54
>> > +0100):
>> >
>> > "available"?
>>
>> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
>>
>>
>what about 'in-house'?
Supply method: in-house sounds good.
Maybe 'internal' also.
--
Nicolas Évrard
B2CK SPRL
rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
E-mail/Jabber: nicolas...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
Dominique Chabord
after an irc exchanged, I 'am willing to propose :
buy_it
make_it
get_it_from_stock
the main reason, is that even translated in French, I don't understand
what litterally means "On Stock" or "On Purchase" which look more like
programmers'memos than functional choice.
extra dreams :
Could we differentiate the method name and the labels in the interface
and documents ? ex : "make_it" when we decide, "made" when we document.
Could we have choices filtered according to other parameters
regards
Le 05/11/2011 13:51, C�dric Krier a �crit :
> Hi,
>
> For the new module sale_supply [1], I have added on sale line a supply
> method which could be:
>
> - On Stock
> - On Purchase
>
> But as the product on the sale line could be a service, I find the "On
> Stock" is not really good.
> So I'm looking for suggestions of better names?
>
> [1] http://codereview.tryton.org/97001/
>
> Thanks,
--
Dominique Chabord - SISalp
Logiciel libre pour l'entreprise : Gestion (ERP) et applications web2
18 avenue Beauregard 74960 Cran Gevrier
145A rue Alexandre Borrely 83000 Toulon
t�l +33(0)950274960 fax +33(0)955274960 mob +33(0)622616438
http://sisalp.fr - http://sisalp.org - http://bdll.fr
Dr. Axel Braun
> * Korbinian Preisler [2011-11-06 11:30 +0100]:
> >Am Sonntag, den 06.11.2011, 09:20 +0100 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> >> On 06/11/11 02:26 +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> >> > * Betr.: " Re: [tryton] Re: Supply Method Name" (Sat, 5 Nov 2011
> >> > 15:30:54
> >> >
> >> > +0100):
> >> > "available"?
> >>
> >> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
> >
> >what about 'in-house'?
>
> Supply method: in-house sounds good.
> Maybe 'internal' also.
You are really talkng about the product availability, dont you?
So it may be
available (in stock and can be sold)
reserved (in stock, but already booked to an order)
scheduled/expected/backlog (not in stock, but ordered with the supplier)
...
Cédric Krier
> Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Nicolas Évrard:
> > * Korbinian Preisler [2011-11-06 11:30 +0100]:
> > >Am Sonntag, den 06.11.2011, 09:20 +0100 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > >> On 06/11/11 02:26 +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > >> > * Betr.: " Re: [tryton] Re: Supply Method Name" (Sat, 5 Nov 2011
> > >> > 15:30:54
> > >> >
> > >> > +0100):
> > >> > "available"?
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
> > >
> > >what about 'in-house'?
> >
> > Supply method: in-house sounds good.
> > Maybe 'internal' also.
>
> You are really talkng about the product availability, dont you?
No. It is about how to supply a sale line.
--
Cédric Krier
B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Dr. Axel Braun
> > > >> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
> > > >
> > > >what about 'in-house'?
> > >
> > > Supply method: in-house sounds good.
> > > Maybe 'internal' also.
> >
> > You are really talkng about the product availability, dont you?
>
> No. It is about how to supply a sale line.
...and the availability drives this.
Dr. Axel Braun
> > > > > >> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
> > > > > >
> > > > > >what about 'in-house'?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Supply method: in-house sounds good.
> > > > > Maybe 'internal' also.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are really talkng about the product availability, dont you?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No. It is about how to supply a sale line.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...and the availability drives this.
>
> No. It is choosen at the sale or by the default value defined on the
> product.
In case you want a general distinction, e.g. for a material always supplied by
a third party order, that makes sense. For normal stock or service products
not, IMHO.
Dr. Axel Braun
> On 06/11/11 18:26 +0100, Dr. Axel Braun wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > > > > > > >> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >what about 'in-house'?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Supply method: in-house sounds good.
> > > > > > > Maybe 'internal' also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are really talkng about the product availability, dont you?
> > > > >
> > > > > No. It is about how to supply a sale line.
> > > >
> > > > ...and the availability drives this.
> > >
> > > No. It is choosen at the sale or by the default value defined on the
> > > product.
> >
> > In case you want a general distinction, e.g. for a material always
> > supplied by a third party order, that makes sense. For normal stock or
> > service products not, IMHO.
>
> I don't understand. If it is not "On Purchase", it is automaticly "On
> Stock" (current naming).
You may want to sell items that you never have on stock - the process is
called a third party order ('Streckengeschäft'). The customer orders with you,
you send a PO to the supplier, and the supplier sends the goods to the
customer, without touching your warehouse.
You send an invoice to the customer, and the customer pays you. You pay the
supplier.
For this process - maybe a certain material - you may want to put a
distinction on material level, so that a sales to a customer immediately
triggers the PO to the supplier.
If you have a stock item - see earlier in the conversation - you can either
deliver from stock, or, if you dont have enough stock, you have to put it on
hold as you first have to purchase it ( I assume this is what you mean with
'on purchase') - you have a backlog in that case, an out-of-stock situation.
So the status of the sales order line is driven from the material
availability.
Cheers/Ax
Cédric Krier
> Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > On 06/11/11 18:26 +0100, Dr. Axel Braun wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > > > > > > > >> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >what about 'in-house'?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Supply method: in-house sounds good.
> > > > > > > > Maybe 'internal' also.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are really talkng about the product availability, dont you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. It is about how to supply a sale line.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and the availability drives this.
> > > >
> > > > No. It is choosen at the sale or by the default value defined on the
> > > > product.
> > >
> > > In case you want a general distinction, e.g. for a material always
> > > supplied by a third party order, that makes sense. For normal stock or
> > > service products not, IMHO.
> >
> > I don't understand. If it is not "On Purchase", it is automaticly "On
> > Stock" (current naming).
>
> You may want to sell items that you never have on stock - the process is
> called a third party order ('Streckengeschäft'). The customer orders with you,
> you send a PO to the supplier, and the supplier sends the goods to the
> customer, without touching your warehouse.
> You send an invoice to the customer, and the customer pays you. You pay the
> supplier.
Yes and this is the sale_supply_drop_shipment
> For this process - maybe a certain material - you may want to put a
> distinction on material level, so that a sales to a customer immediately
> triggers the PO to the supplier.
>
> If you have a stock item - see earlier in the conversation - you can either
> deliver from stock, or, if you dont have enough stock, you have to put it on
> hold as you first have to purchase it ( I assume this is what you mean with
> 'on purchase')
No this is not the "On Purchase". The purchase you are talking about
comes from the order point. So it is still "On Stock".
> - you have a backlog in that case, an out-of-stock situation.
> So the status of the sales order line is driven from the material
> availability.
If you want, but we are not talking about the status of the sale line.
Okko Huisman
On Nov 6, 12:06 pm, Dominique Chabord <dominique.chab...@sisalp.org>
wrote:
>
> after an irc exchanged, I 'am willing to propose :
>
> buy_it
> make_it
> get_it_from_stock
>
Okko Huisman
On Nov 6, 7:33 pm, "Dr. Axel Braun" <axel.br...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 06/11/11 18:26 +0100, Dr. Axel Braun wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > > > > > > > >> It doesn't sound correct: supply method available
>
> > > > > > > > >what about 'in-house'?
>
> > > > > > > > Supply method: in-house sounds good.
> > > > > > > > Maybe 'internal' also.
>
> > > > > > > You are really talkng about the product availability, dont you?
>
> > > > > > No. It is about how to supply a sale line.
>
> > > > > ...and the availability drives this.
>
> > > > No. It is choosen at the sale or by the default value defined on the
> > > > product.
>
> > > In case you want a general distinction, e.g. for a material always
> > > supplied by a third party order, that makes sense. For normal stock or
> > > service products not, IMHO.
>
> > I don't understand. If it is not "On Purchase", it is automaticly "On
> > Stock" (current naming).
>
> You may want to sell items that you never have on stock - the process is
> called a third party order ('Streckengeschäft'). The customer orders with you,
> you send a PO to the supplier, and the supplier sends the goods to the
> customer, without touching your warehouse.
> You send an invoice to the customer, and the customer pays you. You pay the
> supplier.
Okko Huisman
>
> after an irc exchanged, I 'am willing to propose :
>
> buy_it
> make_it
> get_it_from_stock
>
Dominique Chabord
Le 06/11/2011 20:25, C�dric Krier a �crit :
>
> But not doable because
I don't think this reason is valid ;-)
rgrds
Cédric Krier
>
>
> Le 06/11/2011 20:25, Cédric Krier a écrit :
> >
> > But not doable because
>
> I don't think this reason is valid ;-)
Ok it is not enough.
But the one about the same concept duplicated is strong enough.
Dr. Axel Braun
Different name, same story - fine
> > For this process - maybe a certain material - you may want to put a
> > distinction on material level, so that a sales to a customer immediately
> > triggers the PO to the supplier.
> >
> > If you have a stock item - see earlier in the conversation - you can
> > either deliver from stock, or, if you dont have enough stock, you have
> > to put it on hold as you first have to purchase it ( I assume this is
> > what you mean with 'on purchase')
>
> No this is not the "On Purchase". The purchase you are talking about
> comes from the order point. So it is still "On Stock".
Then please explain what 'on purchase' shall be....
Cédric Krier
> > No this is not the "On Purchase". The purchase you are talking about
> > comes from the order point. So it is still "On Stock".
>
> Then please explain what 'on purchase' shall be....
Simple, at the confirmation of the sale, a purchase request will be
created.
Dr. Axel Braun
> > > No this is not the "On Purchase". The purchase you are talking about
> > > comes from the order point. So it is still "On Stock".
> >
> > Then please explain what 'on purchase' shall be....
>
> Simple, at the confirmation of the sale, a purchase request will be
> created.
So it is not on stock...but you receive it into stock?
Dr. Axel Braun
> On 07/11/11 08:44 +0100, Dr. Axel Braun wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > > On 06/11/11 22:45 +0100, Dr. Axel Braun wrote:
> > > > > No this is not the "On Purchase". The purchase you are talking
> > > > > about comes from the order point. So it is still "On Stock".
> > > >
> > > > Then please explain what 'on purchase' shall be....
> > >
> > > Simple, at the confirmation of the sale, a purchase request will be
> > > created.
> >
> > So it is not on stock...but you receive it into stock?
>
> Depends if you check or not the drop shipment checkbox.
OK, so the 'on purchase' reflects the procurement status of the material, due
to the fact that the availabilty check is negative (and we have no drop
shipment)
Putting this into a more generic context:
The sales is creating a requirement, which (in the current case) just
generates a purchase request (PR). This is OK for a customer-specific material
or a configured material (Cedric has ordered a BMW with the following
option..... ;-)
For a general material, one would probably not want to create a PR for each
requirement. MRP usually drives the replenishment, basing on different
parameter, like lot sizes, min. order sizes, safety stock etc. (I know that
MRP is not yet there) and by this, clustering the demands.
As an additional option, you dont buy the material, you produce it....again,
this is not something that you want to decide in the sales order. So the
status 'on purchase' is a special case of the more generic 'backlog' or 'out
of stock'.
Maybe you want to keep that in mind, in order to prepare tryton for future
functionality.
I'm happy to discuss further functional aspects of procurement resp. supply
chain processes.
Cheers/Ax
Korbinian Preisler
> OK, so the 'on purchase' reflects the procurement status of the material, due
> to the fact that the availabilty check is negative (and we have no drop
> shipment)
>
> Putting this into a more generic context:
> The sales is creating a requirement, which (in the current case) just
> generates a purchase request (PR). This is OK for a customer-specific material
> or a configured material (Cedric has ordered a BMW with the following
> option..... ;-)
> For a general material, one would probably not want to create a PR for each
> requirement. MRP usually drives the replenishment, basing on different
> parameter, like lot sizes, min. order sizes, safety stock etc. (I know that
> MRP is not yet there) and by this, clustering the demands.
> As an additional option, you dont buy the material, you produce it....again,
> this is not something that you want to decide in the sales order. So the
> status 'on purchase' is a special case of the more generic 'backlog' or 'out
> of stock'.
>
the drop shipment on the sale order line is a custom thing. i think the
drop shipment should be configured on the product too like the supply
method.
i think it would be better to make two modules from
stock_supply_drop_shipment. one for the drop shipment and one for the
definition of the supply_method and the drop_shipment on the sale order
line.
Cédric Krier
> Am Montag, 7. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > On 07/11/11 08:44 +0100, Dr. Axel Braun wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, 6. November 2011 schrieb Cédric Krier:
> > > > On 06/11/11 22:45 +0100, Dr. Axel Braun wrote:
> > > > > > No this is not the "On Purchase". The purchase you are talking
> > > > > > about comes from the order point. So it is still "On Stock".
> > > > >
> > > > > Then please explain what 'on purchase' shall be....
> > > >
> > > > Simple, at the confirmation of the sale, a purchase request will be
> > > > created.
> > >
> > > So it is not on stock...but you receive it into stock?
> >
> > Depends if you check or not the drop shipment checkbox.
>
> OK, so the 'on purchase' reflects the procurement status of the material, due
> to the fact that the availabilty check is negative (and we have no drop
> shipment)
It is not a status! It is a choice made by the user.
> Putting this into a more generic context:
> The sales is creating a requirement, which (in the current case) just
> generates a purchase request (PR). This is OK for a customer-specific material
> or a configured material (Cedric has ordered a BMW with the following
> option..... ;-)
> For a general material, one would probably not want to create a PR for each
> requirement.
I don't think so. How will you validate only a part of a grouped
purchase request? The validation must be done based on the origin.
> MRP usually drives the replenishment, basing on different
> parameter, like lot sizes, min. order sizes, safety stock etc. (I know that
> MRP is not yet there) and by this, clustering the demands.
That is the validation process.
> As an additional option, you dont buy the material, you produce it....again,
> this is not something that you want to decide in the sales order.
Yes with production we will have the same issue.
We should have the options: "On Production", "On Stock" and even if the
product is purchasable "On Purchase".
> So the
> status 'on purchase' is a special case of the more generic 'backlog' or 'out
> of stock'.
No. It is not a status.
Cédric Krier
> Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2011, 09:22 +0100 schrieb Dr. Axel Braun:
> > OK, so the 'on purchase' reflects the procurement status of the material, due
> > to the fact that the availabilty check is negative (and we have no drop
> > shipment)
> >
> > Putting this into a more generic context:
> > The sales is creating a requirement, which (in the current case) just
> > generates a purchase request (PR). This is OK for a customer-specific material
> > or a configured material (Cedric has ordered a BMW with the following
> > option..... ;-)
> > For a general material, one would probably not want to create a PR for each
> > requirement. MRP usually drives the replenishment, basing on different
> > parameter, like lot sizes, min. order sizes, safety stock etc. (I know that
> > MRP is not yet there) and by this, clustering the demands.
> > As an additional option, you dont buy the material, you produce it....again,
> > this is not something that you want to decide in the sales order. So the
> > status 'on purchase' is a special case of the more generic 'backlog' or 'out
> > of stock'.
> >
> I agree with axel that the possibility to define the supply method and
> the drop shipment on the sale order line is a custom thing.
I really think we need to copy it to the sale line.
It is like the taxes or the unit etc.
> i think the
> drop shipment should be configured on the product too like the supply
> method.
Agree, I will update it.
> i think it would be better to make two modules from
> stock_supply_drop_shipment. one for the drop shipment and one for the
> definition of the supply_method and the drop_shipment on the sale order
> line.
I don't understand.
Korbinian Preisler
> > > Putting this into a more generic context:
> > > The sales is creating a requirement, which (in the current case) just
> > > generates a purchase request (PR). This is OK for a customer-specific material
> > > or a configured material (Cedric has ordered a BMW with the following
> > > option..... ;-)
> > > For a general material, one would probably not want to create a PR for each
> > > requirement. MRP usually drives the replenishment, basing on different
> > > parameter, like lot sizes, min. order sizes, safety stock etc. (I know that
> > > MRP is not yet there) and by this, clustering the demands.
> > > As an additional option, you dont buy the material, you produce it....again,
> > > this is not something that you want to decide in the sales order. So the
> > > status 'on purchase' is a special case of the more generic 'backlog' or 'out
> > > of stock'.
> > >
> > I agree with axel that the possibility to define the supply method and
> > the drop shipment on the sale order line is a custom thing.
>
> I really think we need to copy it to the sale line.
> It is like the taxes or the unit etc.
Just thought about again. You are right. And therefor one module is
correct.
Cédric Krier
> Hi,
>
> For the new module sale_supply [1], I have added on sale line a supply
> method which could be:
>
> - On Stock
> - On Purchase
>
> But as the product on the sale line could be a service, I find the "On
> Stock" is not really good.
> So I'm looking for suggestions of better names?
>
> [1] http://codereview.tryton.org/97001/
The modules (sale_supply and sale_supply_drop_shipment) are ready to be
pushed except for this naming issue.
I think we did not got any good proposal, especially regarding the
coming production module.
I will try the summary what is the concept we want to name.
In Tryton, the standard procurements are "Outgoing Stock Move" in the
draft state. The scheduler checks for each products if his stock level
will not go under a quantity (defined by order point) over a period
(basicly twice the supply date). If it will go under than a "Purchase
Request" is created (or a production order when module will be ready).
There is one disadvantage with this way, there is no direct link between
a purchase and a sale but sometimes you would like to have it (for
example with drop shipment) and this is the goal of sale_supply module.
So what sale_supply tries to implement is to skip all the procurements
(draft stock move) creation and the scheduler runs etc. by directly
create the "Purchase Request" (or the Production order).
In some way, it is to behave like if the stock level was 0 for this
product and this sale order.
I think the values of "Supply Method" should be linked to the fact of
using or not the stock (and than not include the terms of purchase,
production etc.).
So my proposal will be:
Supply Method:
- From Stock
- On Request
I think request is pretty good because it can refers to both
"Purchase Request" and "Production Request".
Okko Huisman
So my proposal will be:
Supply Method:
- From Stock
- On Request
Cédric Krier
>
> >
> >
> > So my proposal will be:
> >
> > Supply Method:
> > - From Stock
> >
> +1
>
> > - On Request
> >
> I would like to improve it to "On Linked Request"
I don't understand. Linked to what? User will think he has to link a
request.
Cédric Krier
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 12:55:06 PM UTC+1, Cédric Krier wrote:
> >
> > On 27/02/12 03:45 -0800, Okko Huisman wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So my proposal will be:
> > > >
> > > > Supply Method:
> > > > - From Stock
> > > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > - On Request
> > > >
> > > I would like to improve it to "On Linked Request"
> >
> > I don't understand. Linked to what? User will think he has to link a
> > request.
> >
> Linked to a Request instead of From Stock. This is what the user is asking
> for and it link to the request is created by selecting this type.
I think it is really wrong to speak about link that the user doesn't
see.
Albert Cervera i Areny
A Dilluns, 27 de febrer de 2012 12:08:30, C�dric Krier va escriure:
> So my proposal will be:
>
> ����Supply Method:
> ��������������������- From Stock
> ��������������������- On Request
On request sounds good to me. Instead of "From Stock" I'd prefer "From order point". I think that is more descriptive of what will actually happen.
--
Albert Cervera i Areny
Tel: +34 93 553 18 03
Cédric Krier
> A Dilluns, 27 de febrer de 2012 12:08:30, Cédric Krier va escriure:
> > So my proposal will be:
> >
> > Supply Method:
> > - From Stock
> > - On Request
>
> On request sounds good to me. Instead of "From Stock" I'd prefer "From order
> point". I think that is more descriptive of what will actually happen.
Except that "Order Point" will not always be activated and there is no
order point for quantities under zero.
Dominique Chabord
I don't come back on my previous proposals, but still "From" and "On"
are meaningless for me
Even "Supply method" is not obvious.
Would "Origin of goods" be more expliit ?
For some, Supply means "Stock" for others it means "Purchase"
For sure, "on request" doesn't make any sens to me even if I know both
words.
my 2cts
>>>
>>> Supply Method:
>>> - From Stock
>>> - On Request
>>
--
Dominique Chabord - SISalp
Cédric Krier
> Hi,
> I don't come back on my previous proposals, but still "From" and "On"
> are meaningless for me
> Even "Supply method" is not obvious.
This is the answer to "How do you supply this sale line?"
Possible answer:
- I will supply the sale line from the stock
- I will supply the sale line based on a request (purchase or
production)
> Would "Origin of goods" be more expliit ?
I don't like to use goods because with the new types (Goods, Assets and
Service) it will be ambiguous as product could be Goods or Assets.
> For some, Supply means "Stock" for others it means "Purchase"
This is exactly what the value of the field disambiguous.
> For sure, "on request" doesn't make any sens to me even if I know both
> words.
Strange.
Cédric Krier
> I think the values of "Supply Method" should be linked to the fact of
> using or not the stock (and than not include the terms of purchase,
> production etc.).
>
> So my proposal will be:
>
> Supply Method:
> - From Stock
> - On Request
>
> I think request is pretty good because it can refers to both
> "Purchase Request" and "Production Request".
inherited model), especially with the default value.
I think it is better to convert the field into a boolean
"Supply on Request" because "From Stock" is not good to describe the
default behavior.
PS: for the issue with Property field, I prefer to fix it later by
removing Property fields.