Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2017-12-15 Thread Nicolas Malin 

No worries, I agree we can wait after de 17 to improve this part

Nicolas


Le 14/12/2017 à 23:22, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Thanks Nicolas,

Sorry, I completely forgot about that.

I'll have a look ASAP, but after 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10047 that I want in R17 :)


Jacques

Le 14/08/2017 à 20:40, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

Hi Jacques,

All is present on the issue OFBIZ-7113 



But I think the patch doesn't up to date.
It contains big change, I will review quietly if you think it would 
be a good improvement


Nicolas
Le 12/08/2017 à 10:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Just stumbled upon this. Is there a Jira? What is the revision 
commit number?


Thanks
Jacques (sent from PonyMail)

On 2016-04-14 21:03, Nicolas Malin  wrote:

No remarks on this case ?

If the silent is present I open an issue and commit this patch ;)

Nicolas

Le 07/04/2016 10:00, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if 
the
shipment status is ok for editing 
"checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"


I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
like that :

 ...
 service-name="checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked" 
main-action="CREATE"/>
 optional="false"/>...

 

The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have
some failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call
on the same service's transaction.
I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java (copie
de travail)
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
  LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
  Map resp;
  try {
-    resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx,
300, true);
+    resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
  Debug.logError(e, module);
  Map result =
ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();

All unit test pass.
Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new
transaction ?
I couldn't spot any valid reason.

Thnaks for help ;)

Nicolas

--
#jeSuisCharlie
logoNrd 
Nicolas Malin
Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom
pouvent trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
informat...@nereide.fr
8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54

Apache OFBiz  | ofbiz-fr
 | | réseau LE

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2017-12-14 Thread Jacques Le Roux 

Thanks Nicolas,

Sorry, I completely forgot about that.

I'll have a look ASAP, but after 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10047 that I want in R17 :)

Jacques

Le 14/08/2017 à 20:40, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

Hi Jacques,

All is present on the issue OFBIZ-7113 


But I think the patch doesn't up to date.
It contains big change, I will review quietly if you think it would be a good 
improvement

Nicolas
Le 12/08/2017 à 10:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Just stumbled upon this. Is there a Jira? What is the revision commit number?

Thanks
Jacques (sent from PonyMail)

On 2016-04-14 21:03, Nicolas Malin  wrote:

No remarks on this case ?

If the silent is present I open an issue and commit this patch ;)

Nicolas

Le 07/04/2016 10:00, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"

I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
like that :

 ...
 
 ...
 

The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have
some failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call
on the same service's transaction.
I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java (copie
de travail)
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
  LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
  Map resp;
  try {
-    resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx,
300, true);
+    resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
  Debug.logError(e, module);
  Map result =
ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();

All unit test pass.
Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new
transaction ?
I couldn't spot any valid reason.

Thnaks for help ;)

Nicolas

--
#jeSuisCharlie
logoNrd 
Nicolas Malin
Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom
pouvent trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
informat...@nereide.fr
8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54

Apache OFBiz  | ofbiz-fr
 | | réseau LE

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2017-08-14 Thread Nicolas Malin 

Hi Jacques,

All is present on the issue OFBIZ-7113 



But I think the patch doesn't up to date.
It contains big change, I will review quietly if you think it would be a 
good improvement


Nicolas
Le 12/08/2017 à 10:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Just stumbled upon this. Is there a Jira? What is the revision commit number?

Thanks
Jacques (sent from PonyMail)

On 2016-04-14 21:03, Nicolas Malin  wrote:

No remarks on this case ?

If the silent is present I open an issue and commit this patch ;)

Nicolas

Le 07/04/2016 10:00, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"

I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
like that :

 ...
 
 ...
 

The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have
some failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call
on the same service's transaction.
I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java (copie
de travail)
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
  LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
  Map resp;
  try {
-resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx,
300, true);
+resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
  Debug.logError(e, module);
  Map result =
ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();

All unit test pass.
Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new
transaction ?
I couldn't spot any valid reason.

Thnaks for help ;)

Nicolas

--
#jeSuisCharlie
logoNrd 
Nicolas Malin
Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom
pouvent trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
informat...@nereide.fr
8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54

Apache OFBiz  | ofbiz-fr
 | | réseau LE

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2017-08-12 Thread Jacques Le Roux 
Hi Nicolas,

Just stumbled upon this. Is there a Jira? What is the revision commit number?

Thanks
Jacques (sent from PonyMail)

On 2016-04-14 21:03, Nicolas Malin  wrote: 
> No remarks on this case ?
> 
> If the silent is present I open an issue and commit this patch ;)
> 
> Nicolas
> 
> Le 07/04/2016 10:00, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I 
> > detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the 
> > shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"
> >
> > I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service 
> > like that :
> >
> >  > default-entity-name="ShipmentPackageContent" engine="entity-auto" 
> > invoke="create" auth="true">...
> >  > service-name="checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked" main-action="CREATE"/>
> > ...
> > 
> >
> > The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have 
> > some failed to due database lock on shipment.
> > After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call 
> > on the same service's transaction.
> > I a realize this change :
> >
> > Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
> > ===
> > --- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java 
> > (révision 1737860)
> > +++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java (copie 
> > de travail)
> > @@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
> >  LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
> >  Map resp;
> >  try {
> > -resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx, 
> > 300, true);
> > +resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
> >  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
> >  Debug.logError(e, module);
> >  Map result = 
> > ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();
> >
> > All unit test pass.
> > Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new 
> > transaction ?
> > I couldn't spot any valid reason.
> >
> > Thnaks for help ;)
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> > -- 
> > #jeSuisCharlie
> > logoNrd 
> > Nicolas Malin
> > Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom 
> > pouvent trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
> > informat...@nereide.fr
> > 8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54
> >
> > Apache OFBiz  | ofbiz-fr 
> >  | | réseau LE 
> > 
> 
>

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-09-22 Thread Nicolas Malin 

Hi Rishi,

in line

Le 19/09/2016 à 16:20, Rishi Solanki a écrit :

Nicolas,

"If you are dealing with money, or precision is a must, use BigDecimal.
Otherwise Doubles tend to be good enough." That means, for quantity fields
double should be fine. But within OFBiz, I see entities like OrderItem,
OISGIR, and many other uses BigDecimal for quantity field. But I think that
is because in orderred quantity due to Product.orderDecimalQuantity user
may enter the decimal quantity.

With all this said, if we think WorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity
may contains precision values in it in some business scenarios then we
should go for the #3. Or simple conversion should work as you suggested in
#1.
Sure the #3 would be the better choice, but the step is hard ! I agree 
with you to move on first stable point, and close this too long task.

My suggestion is to go with #1, as I couldn't think of scenario where
precision required upto many decimal places for the
WorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity field.

Hope its not too late for original topic in this thread, +1 for using the
same transaction for the permission services. As whenever we call
permission service in a wrapper service we always use the same transaction.
It's never too late ;) , I continue the work and add new parameter on 
permission service to give the possibility to use or not the same 
transaction. But by default don't use the same.


If you want look forward, I create a branch permission-same-transaction 
on github.com:nmalin/ApacheOFBiz.git to work easily on it.


Nicolas


Thanks!


Best Regards,
--



Rishi Solanki
Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: +91-9893287847
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
wrote:


Hi all, I need some Help !! I put my arm in a gearing :(

After refactor the permission service, I raise a silent problem that is
all call-service used on mini-lang test didn't passed to service validation.

I correct some easier case like bad attribut passed but now rest some
complicate case like this :

testProductionRunCreation : Type check failed for field
[createWorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity]; expected type is
[Double]; actual type is [java.math.BigDecimal]

The problem came from that :

  * Field has define as BigDecimal on mini-lang

  * The service definition use auto-attribute to resolve the java type

  * The field on the entity is define as floating-point and is converted by
fieldType as Double

So to reallign this I have some possibility

1. Easy : test are wrong : convert field instantiation to Double instead
of BigDecimal for all tests failed

2. Medium : service need realign : I surcharge attribute definition to
accept BigDecimal for these service

3. Hard : Why Double for floating-point, I had in my mind that BigDecimal
would be preferred to Double if is the case, we can change all fieldType
conversion to BigDecimal instead of Double and realign all ofbiz code
related.

Your suggest will be truly appreciated ;)

Nicolas


Le 15/04/2016 à 08:23, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :


Hi Nicolas,

I have to note that in ModelPermission the same exact call is also made
with a new transaction. I did not dig deep into it but I advice to at
least
check it over there as well. This makes me suspect that either both call
are wrong or both calls are right.

HTH

Taher Alkhateeb

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Pranay Pandey <
pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

Hi Nicolas,

Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in
implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-

  

It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be supporting
the traditional way of doing things. Reviewing at a complete patch with
all
the modifications you have done for making shipment CRUD operations can
help here getting the opinion. WDYT?

Best regards,

Pranay Pandey
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
wrote:

Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"

I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
like that :

  ...
  
  ...
  

The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have some
failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call on
the same service's transaction.
I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java(copie
de travail)
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-09-20 Thread Pierre Smits 
The estimate quantity is coming from manufacturing where the calculation of
quantities in tasks and production runs is based on fractions register in
product associations (BoM).

So simplification doesn't work.

Best regards,.

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM 
OFBiz based solutions & services

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

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Rishi Solanki 
wrote:

> Nicolas,
>
> "If you are dealing with money, or precision is a must, use BigDecimal.
> Otherwise Doubles tend to be good enough." That means, for quantity fields
> double should be fine. But within OFBiz, I see entities like OrderItem,
> OISGIR, and many other uses BigDecimal for quantity field. But I think that
> is because in orderred quantity due to Product.orderDecimalQuantity user
> may enter the decimal quantity.
>
> With all this said, if we think WorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity
> may contains precision values in it in some business scenarios then we
> should go for the #3. Or simple conversion should work as you suggested in
> #1.
>
>
> My suggestion is to go with #1, as I couldn't think of scenario where
> precision required upto many decimal places for the
> WorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity field.
>
> Hope its not too late for original topic in this thread, +1 for using the
> same transaction for the permission services. As whenever we call
> permission service in a wrapper service we always use the same transaction.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Best Regards,
> --
>
>
>
> Rishi Solanki
> Manager, Enterprise Software Development
> HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
> Direct: +91-9893287847
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all, I need some Help !! I put my arm in a gearing :(
> >
> > After refactor the permission service, I raise a silent problem that is
> > all call-service used on mini-lang test didn't passed to service
> validation.
> >
> > I correct some easier case like bad attribut passed but now rest some
> > complicate case like this :
> >
> > testProductionRunCreation : Type check failed for field
> > [createWorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity]; expected type is
> > [Double]; actual type is [java.math.BigDecimal]
> >
> > The problem came from that :
> >
> >  * Field has define as BigDecimal on mini-lang
> >
> >  * The service definition use auto-attribute to resolve the java type
> >
> >  * The field on the entity is define as floating-point and is converted
> by
> > fieldType as Double
> >
> > So to reallign this I have some possibility
> >
> > 1. Easy : test are wrong : convert field instantiation to Double instead
> > of BigDecimal for all tests failed
> >
> > 2. Medium : service need realign : I surcharge attribute definition to
> > accept BigDecimal for these service
> >
> > 3. Hard : Why Double for floating-point, I had in my mind that BigDecimal
> > would be preferred to Double if is the case, we can change all fieldType
> > conversion to BigDecimal instead of Double and realign all ofbiz code
> > related.
> >
> > Your suggest will be truly appreciated ;)
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> >
> > Le 15/04/2016 à 08:23, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
> >
> >> Hi Nicolas,
> >>
> >> I have to note that in ModelPermission the same exact call is also made
> >> with a new transaction. I did not dig deep into it but I advice to at
> >> least
> >> check it over there as well. This makes me suspect that either both call
> >> are wrong or both calls are right.
> >>
> >> HTH
> >>
> >> Taher Alkhateeb
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Pranay Pandey <
> >> pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Nicolas,
> >>>
> >>> Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in
> >>> implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>> It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be
> supporting
> >>> the traditional way of doing things. Reviewing at a complete patch with
> >>> all
> >>> the modifications you have done for making shipment CRUD operations can
> >>> help here getting the opinion. WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pranay Pandey
> >>> HotWax Systems
> >>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin <
> nicolas.ma...@nereide.fr>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> 
>  Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
>  detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
>  shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPa
> cked"
> 
>  I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
>  like that :
> 
>     default-entity-name="ShipmentPackageContent" engine="entity-auto"
>  invoke="create" auth="true">...
>     service-name="checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"
>  main-action="CREATE"/>
>

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-09-20 Thread Jacques Le Roux 

This could be related https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6386 (did not 
check anything, just a souvenir)

Jacques


Le 19/09/2016 à 16:20, Rishi Solanki a écrit :

Nicolas,

"If you are dealing with money, or precision is a must, use BigDecimal.
Otherwise Doubles tend to be good enough." That means, for quantity fields
double should be fine. But within OFBiz, I see entities like OrderItem,
OISGIR, and many other uses BigDecimal for quantity field. But I think that
is because in orderred quantity due to Product.orderDecimalQuantity user
may enter the decimal quantity.

With all this said, if we think WorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity
may contains precision values in it in some business scenarios then we
should go for the #3. Or simple conversion should work as you suggested in
#1.


My suggestion is to go with #1, as I couldn't think of scenario where
precision required upto many decimal places for the
WorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity field.

Hope its not too late for original topic in this thread, +1 for using the
same transaction for the permission services. As whenever we call
permission service in a wrapper service we always use the same transaction.

Thanks!


Best Regards,
--



Rishi Solanki
Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: +91-9893287847
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
wrote:


Hi all, I need some Help !! I put my arm in a gearing :(

After refactor the permission service, I raise a silent problem that is
all call-service used on mini-lang test didn't passed to service validation.

I correct some easier case like bad attribut passed but now rest some
complicate case like this :

testProductionRunCreation : Type check failed for field
[createWorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity]; expected type is
[Double]; actual type is [java.math.BigDecimal]

The problem came from that :

  * Field has define as BigDecimal on mini-lang

  * The service definition use auto-attribute to resolve the java type

  * The field on the entity is define as floating-point and is converted by
fieldType as Double

So to reallign this I have some possibility

1. Easy : test are wrong : convert field instantiation to Double instead
of BigDecimal for all tests failed

2. Medium : service need realign : I surcharge attribute definition to
accept BigDecimal for these service

3. Hard : Why Double for floating-point, I had in my mind that BigDecimal
would be preferred to Double if is the case, we can change all fieldType
conversion to BigDecimal instead of Double and realign all ofbiz code
related.

Your suggest will be truly appreciated ;)

Nicolas


Le 15/04/2016 à 08:23, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :


Hi Nicolas,

I have to note that in ModelPermission the same exact call is also made
with a new transaction. I did not dig deep into it but I advice to at
least
check it over there as well. This makes me suspect that either both call
are wrong or both calls are right.

HTH

Taher Alkhateeb

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Pranay Pandey <
pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

Hi Nicolas,

Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in
implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-

  

It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be supporting
the traditional way of doing things. Reviewing at a complete patch with
all
the modifications you have done for making shipment CRUD operations can
help here getting the opinion. WDYT?

Best regards,

Pranay Pandey
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
wrote:

Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"

I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
like that :

  ...
  
  ...
  

The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have some
failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call on
the same service's transaction.
I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java(copie
de travail)
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
   LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
   Map resp;
   try {
-resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx,
300, true);
+resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
   } catch (GenericServiceException e) {

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-09-19 Thread Rishi Solanki 
Nicolas,

"If you are dealing with money, or precision is a must, use BigDecimal.
Otherwise Doubles tend to be good enough." That means, for quantity fields
double should be fine. But within OFBiz, I see entities like OrderItem,
OISGIR, and many other uses BigDecimal for quantity field. But I think that
is because in orderred quantity due to Product.orderDecimalQuantity user
may enter the decimal quantity.

With all this said, if we think WorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity
may contains precision values in it in some business scenarios then we
should go for the #3. Or simple conversion should work as you suggested in
#1.


My suggestion is to go with #1, as I couldn't think of scenario where
precision required upto many decimal places for the
WorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity field.

Hope its not too late for original topic in this thread, +1 for using the
same transaction for the permission services. As whenever we call
permission service in a wrapper service we always use the same transaction.

Thanks!


Best Regards,
--



Rishi Solanki
Manager, Enterprise Software Development
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Direct: +91-9893287847
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
wrote:

> Hi all, I need some Help !! I put my arm in a gearing :(
>
> After refactor the permission service, I raise a silent problem that is
> all call-service used on mini-lang test didn't passed to service validation.
>
> I correct some easier case like bad attribut passed but now rest some
> complicate case like this :
>
> testProductionRunCreation : Type check failed for field
> [createWorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity]; expected type is
> [Double]; actual type is [java.math.BigDecimal]
>
> The problem came from that :
>
>  * Field has define as BigDecimal on mini-lang
>
>  * The service definition use auto-attribute to resolve the java type
>
>  * The field on the entity is define as floating-point and is converted by
> fieldType as Double
>
> So to reallign this I have some possibility
>
> 1. Easy : test are wrong : convert field instantiation to Double instead
> of BigDecimal for all tests failed
>
> 2. Medium : service need realign : I surcharge attribute definition to
> accept BigDecimal for these service
>
> 3. Hard : Why Double for floating-point, I had in my mind that BigDecimal
> would be preferred to Double if is the case, we can change all fieldType
> conversion to BigDecimal instead of Double and realign all ofbiz code
> related.
>
> Your suggest will be truly appreciated ;)
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> Le 15/04/2016 à 08:23, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> I have to note that in ModelPermission the same exact call is also made
>> with a new transaction. I did not dig deep into it but I advice to at
>> least
>> check it over there as well. This makes me suspect that either both call
>> are wrong or both calls are right.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Taher Alkhateeb
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Pranay Pandey <
>> pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>
>>> Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in
>>> implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be supporting
>>> the traditional way of doing things. Reviewing at a complete patch with
>>> all
>>> the modifications you have done for making shipment CRUD operations can
>>> help here getting the opinion. WDYT?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Pranay Pandey
>>> HotWax Systems
>>> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,

 Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
 detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
 shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"

 I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
 like that :

  >>> default-entity-name="ShipmentPackageContent" engine="entity-auto"
 invoke="create" auth="true">...
  >>> service-name="checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"
 main-action="CREATE"/>
  ...
  

 The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have some
 failed to due database lock on shipment.
 After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call on
 the same service's transaction.
 I a realize this change :

 Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
 ===
 --- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
 (révision 1737860)
 +++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java(copie
 de travail)
 @@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
   LocalDispatcher dispatcher =

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-09-17 Thread Nicolas Malin 

Hi all, I need some Help !! I put my arm in a gearing :(

After refactor the permission service, I raise a silent problem that is 
all call-service used on mini-lang test didn't passed to service validation.


I correct some easier case like bad attribut passed but now rest some 
complicate case like this :


testProductionRunCreation : Type check failed for field 
[createWorkEffortGoodStandard.estimatedQuantity]; expected type is 
[Double]; actual type is [java.math.BigDecimal]


The problem came from that :

 * Field has define as BigDecimal on mini-lang

 * The service definition use auto-attribute to resolve the java type

 * The field on the entity is define as floating-point and is converted 
by fieldType as Double


So to reallign this I have some possibility

1. Easy : test are wrong : convert field instantiation to Double instead 
of BigDecimal for all tests failed


2. Medium : service need realign : I surcharge attribute definition to 
accept BigDecimal for these service


3. Hard : Why Double for floating-point, I had in my mind that 
BigDecimal would be preferred to Double if is the case, we can change 
all fieldType conversion to BigDecimal instead of Double and realign all 
ofbiz code related.


Your suggest will be truly appreciated ;)

Nicolas

Le 15/04/2016 à 08:23, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

I have to note that in ModelPermission the same exact call is also made
with a new transaction. I did not dig deep into it but I advice to at least
check it over there as well. This makes me suspect that either both call
are wrong or both calls are right.

HTH

Taher Alkhateeb

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Pranay Pandey <
pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:


Hi Nicolas,

Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in
implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-

 

It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be supporting
the traditional way of doing things. Reviewing at a complete patch with all
the modifications you have done for making shipment CRUD operations can
help here getting the opinion. WDYT?

Best regards,

Pranay Pandey
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
wrote:


Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"

I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
like that :

 ...
 
 ...
 

The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have some
failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call on
the same service's transaction.
I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java(copie
de travail)
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
  LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
  Map resp;
  try {
-resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx,
300, true);
+resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
  Debug.logError(e, module);
  Map result =
ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();

All unit test pass.
Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new
transaction ?
I couldn't spot any valid reason.

Thnaks for help ;)

Nicolas

--
#jeSuisCharlie
[image: logoNrd] 
Nicolas Malin
Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom pouvent
trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
informat...@nereide.fr
8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54
Apache OFBiz  |  ofbiz-fr
 |  | réseau LE

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-04-19 Thread Nicolas Malin 

Hi Taher,

It's true :) and it's a beautiful copy paste !

Now my deep think would be that both call are wrong (not wrong but not 
finalized) because the permission eval call a service. And a service 
give the information if he will run on new transaction so we need to 
check on the service definition. More, we can on a specific service, 
call the permission service on new transaction but not on other service.


So a permission service need to analyse if the service to call require a 
new transaction and improve permission service model to surcharge this.


Finally, i will open an issue to improve this ^^ .

Cheers,

Nicolas

Le 15/04/2016 08:23, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

I have to note that in ModelPermission the same exact call is also made
with a new transaction. I did not dig deep into it but I advice to at least
check it over there as well. This makes me suspect that either both call
are wrong or both calls are right.

HTH

Taher Alkhateeb

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Pranay Pandey <
pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:


Hi Nicolas,

Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in
implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-

 

It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be supporting
the traditional way of doing things. Reviewing at a complete patch with all
the modifications you have done for making shipment CRUD operations can
help here getting the opinion. WDYT?

Best regards,

Pranay Pandey
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
wrote:


Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"

I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
like that :

 ...
 
 ...
 

The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have some
failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call on
the same service's transaction.
I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java(copie
de travail)
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
  LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
  Map resp;
  try {
-resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx,
300, true);
+resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
  Debug.logError(e, module);
  Map result =
ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();

All unit test pass.
Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new
transaction ?
I couldn't spot any valid reason.

Thnaks for help ;)

Nicolas

--
#jeSuisCharlie
[image: logoNrd] 
Nicolas Malin
Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom pouvent
trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
informat...@nereide.fr
8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54
Apache OFBiz  |  ofbiz-fr
 |  | réseau LE

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-04-19 Thread Nicolas Malin 

Hi Pranay,
Sorry for the latency
Le 15/04/2016 08:18, Pranay Pandey a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in 
implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-





It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be 
supporting the traditional way of doing things



Yes, and it's the reason that I changed the code ;)


. Reviewing at a complete patch with all the modifications you have 
done for making shipment CRUD operations can help here getting the 
opinion. WDYT?



With pleasure !
My reflexion is : what analyze a permission service ? If it's only the 
security permission by check security group permission, run the service 
permission on new transaction don't' raze problem. But if we want use 
the permission service to analyze a business case to validate a service 
run, we have a risk to generate some lock on service chain.


Cheers,
Nicolas


Best regards,

Pranay Pandey
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
> wrote:


Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and
I detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check
if the shipment status is ok for editing
"checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"

I convert it on service to call it directly by the
permission-service like that :

...

...


The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I
have some failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't
call on the same service's transaction.
I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
(copie de travail)
@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
 LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
 Map resp;
 try {
-resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name
, ctx, 300, true);
+resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name
, ctx);
 } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
 Debug.logError(e, module);
 Map result =
ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();

All unit test pass.
Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new
transaction ?
I couldn't spot any valid reason.

Thnaks for help ;)

Nicolas

-- 
#jeSuisCharlie

logoNrd 
Nicolas Malin
Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom
pouvent trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
informat...@nereide.fr 
8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54

Apache OFBiz  | ofbiz-fr
 | | réseau LE

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-04-15 Thread Taher Alkhateeb 
Hi Nicolas,

I have to note that in ModelPermission the same exact call is also made
with a new transaction. I did not dig deep into it but I advice to at least
check it over there as well. This makes me suspect that either both call
are wrong or both calls are right.

HTH

Taher Alkhateeb

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Pranay Pandey <
pranay.pan...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> Hi Nicolas,
>
> Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in
> implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-
>
> 
>
> It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be supporting
> the traditional way of doing things. Reviewing at a complete patch with all
> the modifications you have done for making shipment CRUD operations can
> help here getting the opinion. WDYT?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pranay Pandey
> HotWax Systems
> http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
>> detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
>> shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"
>>
>> I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service
>> like that :
>>
>> > default-entity-name="ShipmentPackageContent" engine="entity-auto"
>> invoke="create" auth="true">...
>> > service-name="checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked" main-action="CREATE"/>
>> ...
>> 
>>
>> The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have some
>> failed to due database lock on shipment.
>> After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call on
>> the same service's transaction.
>> I a realize this change :
>>
>> Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
>> ===
>> --- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
>> (révision 1737860)
>> +++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java(copie
>> de travail)
>> @@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
>>  LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
>>  Map resp;
>>  try {
>> -resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx,
>> 300, true);
>> +resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
>>  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
>>  Debug.logError(e, module);
>>  Map result =
>> ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();
>>
>> All unit test pass.
>> Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new
>> transaction ?
>> I couldn't spot any valid reason.
>>
>> Thnaks for help ;)
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>> --
>> #jeSuisCharlie
>> [image: logoNrd] 
>> Nicolas Malin
>> Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom pouvent
>> trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
>> informat...@nereide.fr
>> 8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54
>> Apache OFBiz  |  ofbiz-fr
>>  |  | réseau LE
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-04-15 Thread Pranay Pandey 
Hi Nicolas,

Calling it as permission service is tricky. I see the comment in
implementation above the simple method in ShipmentServices.xml-



It was implemented with a purpose to be called inline, may be supporting
the traditional way of doing things. Reviewing at a complete patch with all
the modifications you have done for making shipment CRUD operations can
help here getting the opinion. WDYT?

Best regards,

Pranay Pandey
HotWax Systems
http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Malin 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I
> detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the
> shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"
>
> I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service like
> that :
>
>  default-entity-name="ShipmentPackageContent" engine="entity-auto"
> invoke="create" auth="true">...
>  service-name="checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked" main-action="CREATE"/>
> ...
> 
>
> The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have some
> failed to due database lock on shipment.
> After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call on
> the same service's transaction.
> I a realize this change :
>
> Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
> ===
> --- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java(révision
> 1737860)
> +++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java(copie de
> travail)
> @@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
>  LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
>  Map resp;
>  try {
> -resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx, 300,
> true);
> +resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
>  } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
>  Debug.logError(e, module);
>  Map result =
> ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();
>
> All unit test pass.
> Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new transaction
> ?
> I couldn't spot any valid reason.
>
> Thnaks for help ;)
>
> Nicolas
>
> --
> #jeSuisCharlie
> [image: logoNrd] 
> Nicolas Malin
> Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom pouvent
> trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose
> informat...@nereide.fr
> 8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54
> Apache OFBiz  |  ofbiz-fr
>  |  | réseau LE
> 
>

Re: Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-04-14 Thread Nicolas Malin 

No remarks on this case ?

If the silent is present I open an issue and commit this patch ;)

Nicolas

Le 07/04/2016 10:00, Nicolas Malin a écrit :

Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I 
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the 
shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"


I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service 
like that :


default-entity-name="ShipmentPackageContent" engine="entity-auto" 
invoke="create" auth="true">...
service-name="checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked" main-action="CREATE"/>

...


The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have 
some failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call 
on the same service's transaction.

I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java 
(révision 1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java (copie 
de travail)

@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
 LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
 Map resp;
 try {
-resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx, 
300, true);

+resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
 } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
 Debug.logError(e, module);
 Map result = 
ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();


All unit test pass.
Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new 
transaction ?

I couldn't spot any valid reason.

Thnaks for help ;)

Nicolas

--
#jeSuisCharlie
logoNrd 
Nicolas Malin
Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom 
pouvent trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose

informat...@nereide.fr
8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54

Apache OFBiz  | ofbiz-fr 
 | | réseau LE

Permission service not on the same transaction

2016-04-07 Thread Nicolas Malin 

Hello,

Currently I continue the conversion on shipment  crud service and I 
detected that many service use the same mini-lang call to check if the 
shipment status is ok for editing "checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked"


I convert it on service to call it directly by the permission-service 
like that :


default-entity-name="ShipmentPackageContent" engine="entity-auto" 
invoke="create" auth="true">...
service-name="checkCanChangeShipmentStatusPacked" main-action="CREATE"/>

...


The problem with this change that when I run the unit tests, I have some 
failed to due database lock on shipment.
After some analyse I founded that the permission service wasn't call on 
the same service's transaction.

I a realize this change :

Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java
===
--- framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java (révision 
1737860)
+++ framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ModelService.java (copie de 
travail)

@@ -985,7 +985,7 @@
 LocalDispatcher dispatcher = dctx.getDispatcher();
 Map resp;
 try {
-resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx, 
300, true);

+resp = dispatcher.runSync(permission.name, ctx);
 } catch (GenericServiceException e) {
 Debug.logError(e, module);
 Map result = 
ServiceUtil.returnSuccess();


All unit test pass.
Anyone know the reason to call the permission service on a new transaction ?
I couldn't spot any valid reason.

Thnaks for help ;)

Nicolas

--
#jeSuisCharlie
logoNrd 
Nicolas Malin
Ingénieur d'étude. Dernier sujet : "Les vaches portant un prénom pouvent 
trouver la sortie d'un labyrinthe en cas de toxoplasmose

informat...@nereide.fr
8 rue des Déportés 37000 TOURS, 02 47 50 30 54

Apache OFBiz  | ofbiz-fr 
 | | réseau LE