[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-12364?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17439704#comment-17439704
]
Jacques Le Roux edited comment on OFBIZ-12364 at 11/6/21, 6:22 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HI there,
There is no right and no wrong here. As you can see in the book (I presume
volume 1) there is in figure 9.3* in the part for positionType also a reference
to benefitPercent that also does not appear in the entity-model for
EmplPositionType. On page xxx re Postion Type Definition, Len Silverston starts
with: 'Some enterprises may .."
As you can tell from that (and other examples in the books and subsequent
articles by him, there is leeway. Apparentl when the EmplPositionType entity
got into the code base, the contributor made a choice.
Of course this entity can be corrected to include the proposed change. IMO it
makes sense. However, the impact is a bit bigger than just changing the
definition and the associated (demo) data. For sure, there will be an impact on
forms (either in xml or ftl) and possibly screens, services, functions in
groovy and java.
If you're willing to look into that too for your next version of the patch, I
am confident the project and users working with the HR component/application
will be appreciative.
Please consider next time to provide your proposed change in the form of a pull
request from your dev branch in your public facing repository. Others, not
interested in working with patch files in a ticket, may then come out to
collaborate more.
* On page 304 in my book, but it is quit old.
was (Author: pfm.smits):
HI there,
There is no right and no wrong here. As you can see in the book (I presume
volume 1) there is in figure 9.3* in the part for positionType also a reference
to benefitPercent that also does not appear in the entity-model for
EmplPositionType. On page xxx re Postion Type Definition, Len Silverston starts
with: 'Some enterprises may .."
As you can tell from that (and other examples in the books and subsequent
articles by him, there is leeway. Apparentl when the EmplPositionType entity
got into the code base, the contributor made a choice.
Of course this entity can be corrected to include the proposed change. IMO it
makes sense. However, the impact is a bit bigger than just changing the
definition and the associated (demo) data. For sure, there will be an impact on
forms (either in xml or ftl) and possibly screens, services, functions in
groovy and java.
If you're willing to look into that too for your next version of the patch, I
am confident the project and users working with the HR component/application
will be appreciative.
Please consider next time to provide your proposed change in the form of a pull
request from your dev branch in your public facing repository. Others, not
interested in working with patch files in a ticket, may then come out to
collaborate more.
* On page 304 in my book, but it is quit old.
> Incorrect definition and usage of EmplPositionType?
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-12364
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-12364
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: humanres
> Affects Versions: Trunk
> Reporter: ddev
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: ofbiz-empl-position-type-patch.diff
>
>
> In the Data Model Resouce Book, on page 326 (or on page 306, depending on how
> you are counting pages), it shows EmplPositionType having fields "title" for
> the position title, and "description" to describe what the position is
> supposed to be about.
> However, EmplPositionType in ofbiz is missing the "title" field.
> Fixing this is a simple one line patch.
> However, additionally ofbiz seed data seems to put the title data in the
> description field, like so:
> applications/datamodel/data/seed/HumanResSeedData.xml: <EmplPositionType
> description="Chief Executive Officer" hasTable="N" emplPositionTypeId="CEO"/>
> This is a simple patch as well (patch is attached)
> But does this mean we would assume that people are putting the title in the
> description field in their local database, meaning we wouldn't patch it
> without some kind of translation system to move the description data to the
> title field. What about those people who are using the field correctly
> already?
>
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
