Re: svn commit: r1757991 - in /ofbiz/trunk/applications/manufacturing/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/manu facturing: bom/ jobshopmgt/ mrp/ techdata/

[Jacques Le Roux]

Yes thanks Pierre, just found it in svn annotations, then understood your 
answer :/

Jacques


Le 20/03/2017 à 11:22, Pierre Smits a écrit :

Hey Jacques,

This appears to be the related issue: OFBIZ-7848

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:

What is the situation here, please? Is there a Jira? Should I take care of
that?

Thanks

Jacques



Le 01/09/2016 à 15:28, Harsh Vijaywargiya a écrit :

Thanks Jacques,

Sounds good. I will take care of this suggestion in coming commits.

Thanks & Regards,
Harsh
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 04:51 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

OK I checked, the commented out lines were from pre Apache Era. So
indeed it was not an easy decision.

For

     public void print(List<BOMNode> arr, BigDecimal quantity, int depth,
boolean excludeWIPs) {

I believe the lines were commented out because it's a recursive method.
I still believe we should never let exceptions escape. The probability it
happens is low. Another reason to not let it escape: it should not clutter
the log but when really needed.

So I simply suggest to add

     Debug.logError(e, "Problem calling the " + serviceName + " service
(called by the createManufacturingOrder service)", module);

there.

Globally here is my take

Index: applications/manufacturing/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/
manufacturing/bom/BOMNode.java
===================================================================
--- 
applications/manufacturing/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/manufacturing/bom/BOMNode.java
(revision 1758522)
+++ 
applications/manufacturing/src/main/java/org/apache/ofbiz/manufacturing/bom/BOMNode.java
(working copy)
@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@
                                          variantProduct =
variantProducts.get(0);
                                      }
                                  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
-                                    if (Debug.infoOn())
Debug.logInfo("Error calling getProductVariant service " + e.getMessage(),
module);
+                                    Debug.logError("Error calling
getProductVariant service " + e.getMessage(), module);
                                  }
                                  if (variantProduct != null) {
                                      newNode = new
BOMNode(variantProduct, dispatcher, userLogin);
@@ -433,7 +433,7 @@
                      this.quantity = calcQuantity;
                  }
              } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
-
+                Debug.logError(e, "Problem calling the " + serviceName
+ " service (called by the createManufacturingOrder service)", module);
              }
          } else {
              this.quantity = quantity.multiply(quantityMult
iplier).multiply(scrapFactor);
@@ -573,7 +573,7 @@
                      }
                  }
              } catch (GenericEntityException e) {
-
+                Debug.logError(e, "Problem calling the
getManufacturingComponents service", module);
              }
          }
          return UtilMisc.toMap("productionRunId", productionRunId,
"endDate", endDate);

What to you think?

Jacques


Le 30/08/2016 à 11:21, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Le 30/08/2016 à 08:29, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :

Highlighting code that could be improved rather than fixing it is a
good
way to help potential contributors.
However, and I think this is the reason for Scott's remark, you should
not
have addressed your review/request to individual committer/contributor
(if
the defect you have noticed was not introduced by their contribution,
as in
this case).

OK, got the subtle nuance, thanks

Jacques