How would this be different from the existing fields:
<field name="quantityUomId" type="id"></field>
<field name="quantityIncluded" type="floating-point"></field>
<field name="piecesIncluded" type="numeric"></field>
I think what you're proposing for internalUomId sounds like the
quantityIncluded field and the quantityUomId that goes with it.
I've tried to avoid the idea of a "Unit" or "Each" UOM because it's a
muddy concept. Of course, it might be needed for some things so if
something comes up I won't be opposed to it.
For the Product entity this is the intent of the "piecesIncluded"
field which would basically specify the number of "units" and be
independent of the quantity and its UOM.
The nice thing is these can then be used together. For example to
describe a 6 pack of 1.5 liter water bottles you'd have:
quantityUomId: whatever "liter" is
quantityIncluded: 1.5
piecesIncluded: 6
-David
On Sep 5, 2006, at 3:07 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Right now there is no full support for different uoms in purchase/
sales orders and inventory (there are some - not complete -
contributions in Jira that we'll have to review).
Sooner or later I'll have to implement this.
In the meantime, what about adding a new field ("internalUomId") to
the Product entity to specify the uom in which the units are
stocked (InventoryItem) and to which the unit price refers
(ProductPrices)?
And what about adding a new unit of measure:
<Uom uomId="OTH_unit" uomTypeId="OTHER_MEASURE" abbreviation="unit"
description="Unit"/>
?
This would be useful to specify that a product is sold/purchased/
stocked in units: this would be the default value in the
EditProduct form.
Is it ok?
Jacopo
