Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
David, Si Chen,
Just to let you know my impression as an observer of this thread.
I was shocked to read "the +/- notation does not work well with
PostgreSQL". Was bracing myself for a tidal wave of a change in the
OFBiz framework.
Jonathon
David E. Jones wrote:
On Feb 5, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Si Chen wrote:
David E. Jones wrote:
Hold on a minute there.... did you actually test and find this to
be a problem? The +/- notation is an entity engine ONLY thing and
should never make it to the database.
This patch should be reverted and if +/- are making it to the
database instead of being replaced with an ASC/DESC by the entity
engine then THAT bug should be fixed.
This is a slippery slope and we should backup to the top before it
gets going...
-David
On Feb 2, 2007, at 6:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: sichen
Date: Fri Feb 2 17:16:36 2007
New Revision: 502824
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=502824
Log:
Fix a pretty significant bug with sequence of inventory item
reservations for orders: FIFO and LIFO were reversed (I checked
this) and the +/- notation does not work well with PostgreSQL
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/product/inventory/InventoryReserveServices.xml
David,
I worked on this with Leon, and we did test this a few times, and
the inventory reservation sequence was wrong. Previously when
using the FIFO reservation, the last item received was being
reserved against orders. It seems that "-datetimeReceived" was
ordering them by descending order of date time received, and as a
result reservations were done in the wrong sequence.
We did not realize that the + or - notation were an entity engine
thing, but please test the actual reservation of inventory before
and after this patch and let us know which behavior you feel is
correct. I realize this is a pretty basic fix to an existing
feature, and I had trouble believing that something like this could
be broken, but we did try it several times ourselves.
Si
Perhaps I should have been more explicit in my comment. I was
referring only to the apparent bug report about the +/- notation on
certain databases, including Postgres.
My comments did not mention nor had anything to do with the fix of
the inventory reservation sequence, and it's great that you guys
found and fixed that bug. It looks like the _REC reserve orders were
added to the original code but not implemented correctly, so yeah,
it's great that you took care of that.
-David
Jonathon,
You're welcome to have and express whatever opinion you wish, but what
you are saying is not true.
Si
