On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
It appears to me that there is a one-to-one relationship between a
fixed asset maintenance and a work effort to perform the
maintenance. Wouldn't it be better if there was a one-to-many
relationship?
Let's say I have a company truck fixed asset. I set up two
maintenances for it: oil change every 5000 miles and tire rotation
every 10000 miles. As I enter odometer readings in the Meter Reading
section, the maintenances should generate oil change and tire
rotation work efforts when the maintenance interval is passed.
If I remember right the intent of the maintenance records is to have
one for each part that must be maintained. In this case there would be
one maintenance for the oil change and another for the tire rotation,
even though they happen at the same intervals.
I I understand you right the constraint you are looking at is the
ProductMaint.maintTemplateWorkEffortId field that refers to a single
WorkEffort, and you would like to have more than one WorkEffort
associated with the ProductMaint record. On a side note, the
relationship from ProductMaint to WorkEffort is many-to-one (as
opposed to a one-to-one, meaning they would have the same primary key)
because there can be many ProductMaint records for a single WorkEffort
record. You are proposing to make it a many-to-many relatonship, which
means a join entity to go between them would be needed.
One thing to keep in mind: the way WorkEfforts are designed a single
WorkEffort as a task or whatever can have various sub-WorkEfforts
associated with it.
-David
