Hey Jacques,

This appears to be the related issue: OFBIZ-7848

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[email protected]> wrote:

> What is the situation here, please? Is there a Jira? Should I take care of
> that?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 01/09/2016 à 15:28, Harsh Vijaywargiya a écrit :
>
>> Thanks Jacques,
>>
>> Sounds good. I will take care of this suggestion in coming commits.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Harsh
>> On Wednesday 31 August 2016 04:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> OK I checked, the commented out lines were from pre Apache Era. So
>>> indeed it was not an easy decision.
>>>
>>> For
>>>
>>>     public void print(List<BOMNode> arr, BigDecimal quantity, int depth,
>>> boolean excludeWIPs) {
>>>
>>> I believe the lines were commented out because it's a recursive method.
>>> I still believe we should never let exceptions escape. The probability it
>>> happens is low. Another reason to not let it escape: it should not clutter
>>> the log but when really needed.
>>>
>>> So I simply suggest to add
>>>
>>>     Debug.logError(e, "Problem calling the " + serviceName + " service
>>> (called by the createManufacturingOrder service)", module);
>>>
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Globally here is my take
>>>
>>> Index: applications/manufacturing/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/
>>> manufacturing/bom/BOMNode.java
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- 
>>> applications/manufacturing/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/manufacturing/bom/BOMNode.java
>>> (revision 1758522)
>>> +++ 
>>> applications/manufacturing/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/manufacturing/bom/BOMNode.java
>>> (working copy)
>>> @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@
>>>                                          variantProduct =
>>> variantProducts.get(0);
>>>                                      }
>>>                                  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
>>> -                                    if (Debug.infoOn())
>>> Debug.logInfo("Error calling getProductVariant service " + e.getMessage(),
>>> module);
>>> +                                    Debug.logError("Error calling
>>> getProductVariant service " + e.getMessage(), module);
>>>                                  }
>>>                                  if (variantProduct != null) {
>>>                                      newNode = new
>>> BOMNode(variantProduct, dispatcher, userLogin);
>>> @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@
>>>                      this.quantity = calcQuantity;
>>>                  }
>>>              } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
>>> -
>>> +                Debug.logError(e, "Problem calling the " + serviceName
>>> + " service (called by the createManufacturingOrder service)", module);
>>>              }
>>>          } else {
>>>              this.quantity = quantity.multiply(quantityMult
>>> iplier).multiply(scrapFactor);
>>> @@ -573,7 +573,7 @@
>>>                      }
>>>                  }
>>>              } catch (GenericEntityException e) {
>>> -
>>> +                Debug.logError(e, "Problem calling the
>>> getManufacturingComponents service", module);
>>>              }
>>>          }
>>>          return UtilMisc.toMap("productionRunId", productionRunId,
>>> "endDate", endDate);
>>>
>>> What to you think?
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 30/08/2016 à 11:21, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Le 30/08/2016 à 08:29, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Highlighting code that could be improved rather than fixing it is a
>>>>> good
>>>>> way to help potential contributors.
>>>>> However, and I think this is the reason for Scott's remark, you should
>>>>> not
>>>>> have addressed your review/request to individual committer/contributor
>>>>> (if
>>>>> the defect you have noticed was not introduced by their contribution,
>>>>> as in
>>>>> this case).
>>>>>
>>>> OK, got the subtle nuance, thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to