That would be a good idea. I didn't remove it because I don't have time
to do an impact analysis.
-Adrian
On 2/24/2013 9:00 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Then should we not remove it?
Jacques
From: <adri...@apache.org>
Author: adrianc
Date: Sun Feb 24 00:29:25 2013
New Revision: 1449430
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1449430
Log:
FIXME comment. No functional change.
Modified:
ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=1449430&r1=1449429&r2=1449430&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml (original)
+++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Sun Feb 24
00:29:25 2013
@@ -2506,6 +2506,8 @@ under the License.
<view-link entity-alias="PTY" rel-entity-alias="PTYGRP"
rel-optional="true">
<key-map field-name="partyId"/>
</view-link>
+ <!-- FIXME: This relationship does not make sense. There is no
one-to-one relationship from PARTY to PARTY STATUS,
+ so this relation will cause duplicate values for parties with multiple
statuses. -->
<view-link entity-alias="PTY" rel-entity-alias="PS" rel-optional="true">
<key-map field-name="partyId"/>
</view-link>
