I agree with Rishi here that this isn't an intentional change/mistake. +1 to add the relationship.
Thanks & Regards, Devanshu Vyas. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Rishi Solanki <rishisolan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ratnesh, > > I think we can add this relationship, if websiteId is in order header then > it must have fk constraints as well. Not sure but I think somehow > OrderHeader entity extension goes wrong at sometime. OFBIZ-9457 is an good > example, and I think this website issue won't be an intentional change. > > Looks like mistakenly missed relationship as per my understanding. Should > be fixed. > > +1 for the fix. > > Thanks! > > > > Rishi Solanki > Sr Manager, Enterprise Software Development > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > Direct: +91-9893287847 > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com > www.hotwax.co > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Ratnesh Upadhyay < > upadhyay.ratn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello Devs, > > > > I just walked though from OrderHeader entity and noticed that we have > > webSiteId field there but we don't have any FK constraint for it from > > OrderHeader.webSiteId to WebSite.webSiteId. I was expecting that it must > be > > there. > > > > So just curious to know why it was not there, was it intentional? Please > > let me know if anyone have any information on it else I would provide a > > patch to get it fixed. > > > > Thanks!! > > > > Regards, > > Ratnesh Upadhyay > > HotWax Systems | www.hotwaxsystems.com > > >
