On Mar 27, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Robert Morley wrote: > Yep; when I attempted to do variance on inventory items for serialized > inventory I traveled down that path to the ECA you are referring to. The > trouble is that there is another ECA defined a couple of lines up ... > > <eca entity="InventoryItem" operation="create-store" event="return"> > <action service="updateSerializedInventoryTotals" mode="sync"/> > </eca> > > And this one does the set the QOH/ATP based on the status (for serialized > only). So after the ECA is fired and updates the InventoryItem to put them > in line based on the detail, this one turns around and updates them again and > potentially puts them back out of wack.
Yes, I know that serialized items are based on statusId rather than inventoryitemdetails and I agree that it would be good to reconcile them to the non-serialized logic. > > As for the use case for "held" inventory items. If that is a reasonable use > case then I agree 100%. What we do is use location for these situations -- > for example, when a PO is received we allow the user to receive the inventory > into a specific location. So if there is a "review" location that is not > pickable then it may move there. Otherwise, it may move into a stockroom > location that would be pickable. > > Putting inventory items on "hold" is perfectly reasonable. I would have to > look at the code again, but I wonder how this is done for non-serialized > items. I don't know about serialized inventory, I know there are some OFBiz instances in production that are using on-hold status for non-serialized inventory. > Does it break the "bundle" of items (InventoryItem) into two so that one can > be on "hold" while the other one can have no status? Currently, the > "INV_ON_HOLD" is defined under a "SERIALIZED_INV_ITEM" parent so it is > actually somewhat invalid to even set this on non-serialized items. The one I am talking about is INV_NS_ON_HOLD > > Jacopo, if I start to make some changes based on our discussions would you be > willing to to review the changes? Sure. To all committers: do you agree with the plan to reimplement serialized inventory QOH/ATP to be based on InventoryItemDetail rather than InventoryItem.statusId? Kind regards, Jacopo > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:22:47 PM > Subject: Re: Resolving inconsistency between serialized and non-serialized > inventory > > On Mar 27, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Robert Morley wrote: > >> There is a balance inventory items service that executes and keeps the >> details and materialized QOH/ATP in-line. And this service does it for both >> types of inventory items -- the trouble is that there is another service >> that executes specifically for serialized inventory items and it hardcodes >> the values based on the status. Something like if "AVAILABLE" set 1/1, if >> "DELIVERED" set 0/0, else set it to 1/0. When you stop doing this I think >> you notice that the InventoryItemDetail is not created for serialized >> inventory when products are received. >> > > I was referring to the following eca: > > <!-- The InventoryItemDetail entity should never be updated/stored or > deleted/removed, but we'll catch those too anyway... --> > <eca entity="InventoryItemDetail" operation="create-store-remove" > event="return"> > <action service="updateInventoryItemFromDetail" mode="sync"/> > </eca> > >> Your comment about holds is interesting -- I wonder, however, where the use >> case is to hold individual item pieces. > > For example you receive some items into the warehouse, and you want to "hold" > them before quality control etc.. > > Jacopo > >> For example, I would have thought if you are doing an order and want to put >> it on hold it effectively has the items on hold. Same with a transfer, etc. >> I would have thought that doing these things would do a reservation against >> the inventory items and reduce the ATP. To do otherwise would require >> breaking non-serialized inventory items into buckets each time you want to >> "hold" a few. But I could certainly be wrong here ... >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> >> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org >> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:15:24 AM >> Subject: Re: Resolving inconsistency between serialized and non-serialized >> inventory >> >> >> On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:46 PM, Bob Morley wrote: >> >>> - consider an enhancement to existing presentment based services that >>> prevents the QOH/ATP values from being set directly. The line of thinking >>> is that they should be materialized via ECA based on operations to the >>> InventoryItemDetail entity. >> >> Isn't this already done in this way? >> >> Jacopo >> >
