Yes that would be the workaround since we have ms there
Jacques
Le 15/01/2015 08:39, Pierre Smits a écrit :
Ahh.
Now it is getting clearer. You are introducing potentially new requirement
regarding uniqueness (the securityGroupId). Of course it will fail to load,
because the primary keys didn't change. The easiest workaround would be to
change the fromDate, as this is part of the set of primary keys.
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[email protected]> wrote:
OK, let's keep it "simple". Suppose you have (this is demo data +
securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE", I just made it even if does make
much - if any - sense)
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="Company" partyIdTo="accountingadmin"
partyRelationshipTypeId="EMPLOYMENT" roleTypeIdFrom="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"
roleTypeIdTo="EMPLOYEE" fromDate="2001-01-01 12:00:00.0"
securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE"/>
Then suppose you need also (don't try to make sense to this just focus on
my point)
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="Company" partyIdTo="accountingadmin"
partyRelationshipTypeId="EMPLOYMENT" roleTypeIdFrom="INTERNAL_ORGANIZATIO"
roleTypeIdTo="EMPLOYEE" fromDate="2001-01-01 12:00:00.0"
securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPL-NOEML"/>
Then you can't have both securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPLOYEE" AND
securityGroupId="MYPORTAL_EMPL-NOEML"
That's just what I want to say. It maybe have no real interest in the case
of PartyRelationship.
But Ron's request at OFBIZ-3764 would not be covered if we simply added a
field to PartyRelationship to what was initially envisioned by Bob (an
account number)
Because Ron's request (the condo association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Condominium) is to have many different "account numbers" for the same
parties in the the same roles.
HTH
Jacques
Le 14/01/2015 23:54, Pierre Smits a écrit :
Jacques,
In order to grasp what you tried to bring across I assembled some PoC
data.
See below:
<PartyRelationshipType description="" hasTable="N" parentTypeId=""
partyRelationshipName="Agent" partyRelationshipTypeId="AGENT"
roleTypeIdValidFrom="" roleTypeIdValidTo=""/>
<!-- relations from the left side party to 2 different parties with
the
same role -->]
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo=
"DemoCustAgent" roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="
AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo="admin"
roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="
AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<!-- the relationship of the second example with a different fromDate
-->
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustCompany" partyIdTo="admin"
roleTypeIdFrom="CUSTOMER" roleTypeIdTo="AGENT"
fromDate="2010-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="
AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<!-- a party relationship reversed -->
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="DemoCustAgent" partyIdTo=
"DemoCustCompany" roleTypeIdFrom="AGENT" roleTypeIdTo="CUSTOMER"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="
AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<!-- both parties having the same role -->
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="admin" partyIdTo="ltdadmin"
roleTypeIdFrom="MANAGER" roleTypeIdTo="MANAGER"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="
AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
<PartyRelationship partyIdFrom="ltdadmin" partyIdTo="admin"
roleTypeIdFrom="MANAGER" roleTypeIdTo="MANAGER"
fromDate="2001-05-13 00:00:00.000" partyRelationshipTypeId="
AGENT"
comments="Sandbox example"/>
All load perfectly well when the PartyRelationshipType doens't have and
when parties have the roles they should have for the relationship.
So you do have to explain better, because I am not getting it.
Regards,
Pierre Smits
*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[email protected]> wrote:
This is not what I mean Pierre, please re-read
Jacques
