[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7957?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15443423#comment-15443423
]
Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-7957:
----------------------------------------
Sounds good to me
> RateAmount is not found when the level is 'WorkEffort'
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-7957
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7957
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: accounting
> Affects Versions: Trunk
> Reporter: Montalbano Florian
> Labels: accounting, level, rate, rateAmount, workeffort
>
> When you create a RateAmount, you can determine for which WorkEffort it
> should apply. But when this RateAmount is retrieved for a specific
> WorkEffort, it fails to find the good RateAmount.
> The problem comes from the check done to retrieve the RateAmount at a
> WorkEffort level. This is the used check :
> {code}
> <entity-and entity-name="RateAmount" list="amounts" filter-by-date="true">
> <field-map field-name="rateTypeId"
> from-field="parameters.rateTypeId"/>
> <field-map field-name="partyId"
> from-field="parameters.partyId"/>
> <field-map field-name="workEffortId"
> from-field="parameters.workEffortId"/>
> <field-map field-name="periodTypeId"
> from-field="parameters.periodTypeId"/>
> <field-map field-name="rateCurrencyUomId"
> from-field="parameters.rateCurrencyUomId"/>
> </entity-and>
> <if-empty field="amounts">
> {code}
> In this 'entity-and', the partyId is set as a constraint. But it is possible
> to enable a special RateAmount only for a WorkEffort without regarding the
> partyId.
> I think we have 2 options here :
> - Remove the partyId constraint but then the retrieving may be less accurate
> - Make the retrieving more accurate by checking first the WorkEffort, then
> from the retrieved list, check if the partyId matches and finally from this
> second retrieval, check if the emplPositionTypeId match. At the end, we would
> have the most accurate RateAmount.
> What do you think of it ?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
