Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
My vote is for Approach#1. Thanks & Regards -- Yashwant Dhakad HotWax Systems http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:55 PM, James Yong wrote: > Hi all, > > My vote is for Design Approach #1 > > Can consider having the additional modifications: > > 1) Item Issuance & Shipment Receipt entities: Add columns (i.e. > InventoryTransferHeaderId & InventoryTransferId ) to support inventory > transfer with shipment. > > 2) Inventory Transfer Adjustment entity: For the tax. > > Regards, > James Yong > > On 2018/04/24 08:20:44, Pawan Verma > wrote: > > Here is the right link for the subtask OFBIZ-10365< > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10365>. > > > > -- > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > > HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > > <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > Indore, > > M.P, India - 452010 > > Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Pawan Verma < > pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > I have added possible 4 different Design approaches for this > improvement > > > at subtask OFBIZ-10365<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/10365>. > We > > > can discuss on this and finalize best possible approach for this task. > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > > > HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > > > <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > > > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > > > Indore, M.P, India - 452010 > > > Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Pawan Verma < > > > pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hello All, > > >> > > >> Thanks, everyone for your thoughts and inputs. > > >> > > >> Here <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10353> is the > ticket > > >> created for the same. Soon I will add the high-level design of the > task. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Thanks and Regards, > > >> > > >> *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > > >> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > > >> <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > > >> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > > >> Indore, M.P, India - 452010 > > >> Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > >> > > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pierre Smits > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and > > >>> protocols > > >>> is a widely accepted solution. > > >>> > > >>> Best regards > > >>> > > >>> Pierre > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity. > > >>> > > > >>> > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > Thanks all your suggestions. > > >>> > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering > flow > > >>> lead > > >>> > to > > >>> > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong > preference > > >>> to use > > >>> > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the > > >>> discussed > > >>> > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to > maintain > > >>> and > > >>> > most > > >>> > > flexible way. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then > > >>> let's > > >>> > cut a > > >>> > > JIRA to proceed with it. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Thanks, > > >>> > > Swapnil > > >>> > > > > >>> > > -Original Message- > > >>
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
Hi all, My vote is for Design Approach #1 Can consider having the additional modifications: 1) Item Issuance & Shipment Receipt entities: Add columns (i.e. InventoryTransferHeaderId & InventoryTransferId ) to support inventory transfer with shipment. 2) Inventory Transfer Adjustment entity: For the tax. Regards, James Yong On 2018/04/24 08:20:44, Pawan Verma wrote: > Here is the right link for the subtask OFBIZ-10365< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10365>. > > -- > Thanks and Regards, > > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore, > M.P, India - 452010 > Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Pawan Verma > wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > I have added possible 4 different Design approaches for this improvement > > at subtask OFBIZ-10365<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/10365>. We > > can discuss on this and finalize best possible approach for this task. > > > > -- > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > > HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > > <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > > Indore, M.P, India - 452010 > > Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Pawan Verma < > > pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello All, > >> > >> Thanks, everyone for your thoughts and inputs. > >> > >> Here <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10353> is the ticket > >> created for the same. Soon I will add the high-level design of the task. > >> > >> -- > >> Thanks and Regards, > >> > >> *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > >> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > >> <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > >> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > >> Indore, M.P, India - 452010 > >> Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pierre Smits > >> wrote: > >> > >>> An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and > >>> protocols > >>> is a widely accepted solution. > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> > >>> Pierre > >>> > >>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong wrote: > >>> > >>> > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity. > >>> > > >>> > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah > >>> wrote: > >>> > > Thanks all your suggestions. > >>> > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow > >>> lead > >>> > to > >>> > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference > >>> to use > >>> > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the > >>> discussed > >>> > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain > >>> and > >>> > most > >>> > > flexible way. > >>> > > > >>> > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then > >>> let's > >>> > cut a > >>> > > JIRA to proceed with it. > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks, > >>> > > Swapnil > >>> > > > >>> > > -Original Message- > >>> > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > >>> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM > >>> > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > >>> > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer > >>> records > >>> > > > >>> > > Hi all, > >>> > > > >>> > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or > >>> > without > >>> > > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory > >>> > > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and > >>> Purchase > >>> > > Order. Using Order for transfer ma
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
Hello Pawan, Inventory transfer is a type of order. So, IMO instead of introducing a new data model for inventory transfer, we should use Order data model. +1 for Design approach #3 Thanks & Regards Vaibhav Jain Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer HotWax Systems m: 782-834-1900 e: vaibhav.j...@hotwaxsystems.com On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Pawan Verma wrote: > Here is the right link for the subtask OFBIZ-10365< > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10365>. > > -- > Thanks and Regards, > > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > Indore, > M.P, India - 452010 > Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Pawan Verma < > pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com> > wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > > I have added possible 4 different Design approaches for this improvement > > at subtask OFBIZ-10365<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/10365>. We > > can discuss on this and finalize best possible approach for this task. > > > > -- > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > > HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > > <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > > Indore, M.P, India - 452010 > > Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Pawan Verma < > > pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello All, > >> > >> Thanks, everyone for your thoughts and inputs. > >> > >> Here <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10353> is the ticket > >> created for the same. Soon I will add the high-level design of the task. > >> > >> -- > >> Thanks and Regards, > >> > >> *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > >> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > >> <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > >> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > >> Indore, M.P, India - 452010 > >> Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pierre Smits > >> wrote: > >> > >>> An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and > >>> protocols > >>> is a widely accepted solution. > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> > >>> Pierre > >>> > >>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong wrote: > >>> > >>> > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity. > >>> > > >>> > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah > >>> wrote: > >>> > > Thanks all your suggestions. > >>> > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow > >>> lead > >>> > to > >>> > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference > >>> to use > >>> > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the > >>> discussed > >>> > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain > >>> and > >>> > most > >>> > > flexible way. > >>> > > > >>> > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then > >>> let's > >>> > cut a > >>> > > JIRA to proceed with it. > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks, > >>> > > Swapnil > >>> > > > >>> > > -Original Message- > >>> > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > >>> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM > >>> > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > >>> > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer > >>> records > >>> > > > >>> > > Hi all, > >>> > > > >>> > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with > or > >>> > without > >>> > > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for > inventory > >>> > > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and > >>> Purchase > >>> > > Or
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
Here is the right link for the subtask OFBIZ-10365< https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10365>. -- Thanks and Regards, *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore, M.P, India - 452010 Cell phone: +91 9977705687 On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Pawan Verma wrote: > Hello All, > > I have added possible 4 different Design approaches for this improvement > at subtask OFBIZ-10365<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/10365>. We > can discuss on this and finalize best possible approach for this task. > > -- > Thanks and Regards, > > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > Indore, M.P, India - 452010 > Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Pawan Verma < > pawan.ve...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> Thanks, everyone for your thoughts and inputs. >> >> Here <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10353> is the ticket >> created for the same. Soon I will add the high-level design of the task. >> >> -- >> Thanks and Regards, >> >> *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer >> HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems >> <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> >> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, >> Indore, M.P, India - 452010 >> Cell phone: +91 9977705687 >> >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pierre Smits >> wrote: >> >>> An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and >>> protocols >>> is a widely accepted solution. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Pierre >>> >>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong wrote: >>> >>> > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity. >>> > >>> > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah >>> wrote: >>> > > Thanks all your suggestions. >>> > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow >>> lead >>> > to >>> > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference >>> to use >>> > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the >>> discussed >>> > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain >>> and >>> > most >>> > > flexible way. >>> > > >>> > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then >>> let's >>> > cut a >>> > > JIRA to proceed with it. >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > Swapnil >>> > > >>> > > -Original Message- >>> > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] >>> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM >>> > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org >>> > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer >>> records >>> > > >>> > > Hi all, >>> > > >>> > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or >>> > without >>> > > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory >>> > > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and >>> Purchase >>> > > Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand >>> inventory >>> > > transfer functionalities in the future. >>> > > >>> > > We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference. >>> > > http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > James Yong >>> > > >>> > > On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah >>> > wrote: >>> > > > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment >>> that >>> > > > needs to change hands between source and destination facility as a >>> > > > part of single operational system. If we are willing to take Order >>> > > > model route, then is it possible that we introduce a new order type >>> &g
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
Hello All, I have added possible 4 different Design approaches for this improvement at subtask OFBIZ-10365<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/10365>. We can discuss on this and finalize best possible approach for this task. -- Thanks and Regards, *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore, M.P, India - 452010 Cell phone: +91 9977705687 On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Pawan Verma wrote: > Hello All, > > Thanks, everyone for your thoughts and inputs. > > Here <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10353> is the ticket > created for the same. Soon I will add the high-level design of the task. > > -- > Thanks and Regards, > > *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer > HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems > <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> > Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, > Indore, M.P, India - 452010 > Cell phone: +91 9977705687 > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pierre Smits > wrote: > >> An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and protocols >> is a widely accepted solution. >> >> Best regards >> >> Pierre >> >> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong wrote: >> >> > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity. >> > >> > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah >> wrote: >> > > Thanks all your suggestions. >> > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow >> lead >> > to >> > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference to >> use >> > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the >> discussed >> > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain >> and >> > most >> > > flexible way. >> > > >> > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then let's >> > cut a >> > > JIRA to proceed with it. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Swapnil >> > > >> > > -Original Message- >> > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] >> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM >> > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org >> > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer >> records >> > > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or >> > without >> > > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory >> > > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and Purchase >> > > Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand inventory >> > > transfer functionalities in the future. >> > > >> > > We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference. >> > > http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > James Yong >> > > >> > > On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah >> > wrote: >> > > > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment >> that >> > > > needs to change hands between source and destination facility as a >> > > > part of single operational system. If we are willing to take Order >> > > > model route, then is it possible that we introduce a new order type >> > > > 'Replenishment Order (RO)' or 'Transfer Order' along with new >> Shipment >> > > > Type ‘Transfer Shipment’. And allow to have these ROs processed >> > > > through this single transfer shipment. >> > > > What it would mean is that: >> > > > >> > > >1. Create RO with Shipping Facility (i.e. originating >> > > >DC/Warehouse/Store) and Receiving Facility (i.e. destination >> > > >DC/Warehouse/Store). Possibly with same ‘Bill/Ship From >> Vendor’ >> > and >> > > >‘Bill/Ship to Customer’ party id (as long as both originating >> > and >> > > >destination facilities are owned by same registered company or >> > business >> > > >entity). >> > > >2. Allow to selectively reserve Inventory Items against
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
Hello All, Thanks, everyone for your thoughts and inputs. Here <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10353> is the ticket created for the same. Soon I will add the high-level design of the task. -- Thanks and Regards, *Pawan Verma* | Sr. Enterprise Software Engineer HotWax Commerce <http://www.hotwax.co/> by HotWax Systems <http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/> Plot no. 80, Scheme no. 78 Part ||, Near Brilliant Convention Center, Indore, M.P, India - 452010 Cell phone: +91 9977705687 On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and protocols > is a widely accepted solution. > > Best regards > > Pierre > > On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong wrote: > > > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity. > > > > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah > wrote: > > > Thanks all your suggestions. > > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow > lead > > to > > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference to > use > > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the > discussed > > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain and > > most > > > flexible way. > > > > > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then let's > > cut a > > > JIRA to proceed with it. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Swapnil > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM > > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer > records > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or > > without > > > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory > > > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and Purchase > > > Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand inventory > > > transfer functionalities in the future. > > > > > > We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference. > > > http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment > > > > > > Regards, > > > James Yong > > > > > > On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah > > wrote: > > > > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment that > > > > needs to change hands between source and destination facility as a > > > > part of single operational system. If we are willing to take Order > > > > model route, then is it possible that we introduce a new order type > > > > 'Replenishment Order (RO)' or 'Transfer Order' along with new > Shipment > > > > Type ‘Transfer Shipment’. And allow to have these ROs processed > > > > through this single transfer shipment. > > > > What it would mean is that: > > > > > > > >1. Create RO with Shipping Facility (i.e. originating > > > >DC/Warehouse/Store) and Receiving Facility (i.e. destination > > > >DC/Warehouse/Store). Possibly with same ‘Bill/Ship From > Vendor’ > > and > > > >‘Bill/Ship to Customer’ party id (as long as both originating > > and > > > >destination facilities are owned by same registered company or > > business > > > >entity). > > > >2. Allow to selectively reserve Inventory Items against RO items > > (even > > > >if it means overriding existing reservations). > > > >3. Allow warehouse/facility to group all common destination RO in > a > > > >single ‘Transfer Shipment’ during picking. > > > >4. Once shipment is packed/shipped from originating facility then > > move > > > >its status to ‘Shipped’. At the same time linked RO’s status > > can > > > > also be > > > >marked as ‘Shipped’. This should affect the on Hand to the > tune > > of > > > > shipped > > > >units. > > > >5. Generate only a separate Tax Invoice (if applicable) against > > linked > > > >RO. > > > >6. Allow Destination Facility to ‘Receive’ the ‘Shipped’ > RO > > > > (similar to > > > >PO receiving) but under the very same linked Transfer Shipment &
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
An internal order policy with appropriate process definition and protocols is a widely accepted solution. Best regards Pierre On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 at 14:59 James Yong wrote: > +1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity. > > On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah wrote: > > Thanks all your suggestions. > > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow lead > to > > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference to use > > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the discussed > > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain and > most > > flexible way. > > > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then let's > cut a > > JIRA to proceed with it. > > > > Thanks, > > Swapnil > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > > > Hi all, > > > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or > without > > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory > > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and Purchase > > Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand inventory > > transfer functionalities in the future. > > > > We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference. > > http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment > > > > Regards, > > James Yong > > > > On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah > wrote: > > > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment that > > > needs to change hands between source and destination facility as a > > > part of single operational system. If we are willing to take Order > > > model route, then is it possible that we introduce a new order type > > > 'Replenishment Order (RO)' or 'Transfer Order' along with new Shipment > > > Type ‘Transfer Shipment’. And allow to have these ROs processed > > > through this single transfer shipment. > > > What it would mean is that: > > > > > >1. Create RO with Shipping Facility (i.e. originating > > >DC/Warehouse/Store) and Receiving Facility (i.e. destination > > >DC/Warehouse/Store). Possibly with same ‘Bill/Ship From Vendor’ > and > > >‘Bill/Ship to Customer’ party id (as long as both originating > and > > >destination facilities are owned by same registered company or > business > > >entity). > > >2. Allow to selectively reserve Inventory Items against RO items > (even > > >if it means overriding existing reservations). > > >3. Allow warehouse/facility to group all common destination RO in a > > >single ‘Transfer Shipment’ during picking. > > >4. Once shipment is packed/shipped from originating facility then > move > > >its status to ‘Shipped’. At the same time linked RO’s status > can > > > also be > > >marked as ‘Shipped’. This should affect the on Hand to the tune > of > > > shipped > > >units. > > >5. Generate only a separate Tax Invoice (if applicable) against > linked > > >RO. > > >6. Allow Destination Facility to ‘Receive’ the ‘Shipped’ RO > > > (similar to > > >PO receiving) but under the very same linked Transfer Shipment that > was > > >shipped from originating facility. This should affect the On hand to > > > the > > >tune of received units. > > >7. Once whole Shipment is successfully received, move the shipment > to > > >‘Received’ status. And at the same time linked RO can also be > > > marked as > > >‘Completed’. > > >8. Hit the necessary and relevant GL accounts and posting in the > > > process > > >wherever needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure about level of technical changes involved against other > > > suggested approaches, so please feel free to ignore if it looks over > > > complicated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Swapnil > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Vaibhav Jain [mailto:vaibhav.j...@hotwaxsystems.com] >
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
+1 for Inventory Transfer without using Order entity. On 2017-10-28 02:13, Swapnil Shah wrote: > Thanks all your suggestions. > I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow lead to > the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference to use > one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the discussed > requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain and most > flexible way. > > If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then let's cut a > JIRA to proceed with it. > > Thanks, > Swapnil > > -Original Message- > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > Hi all, > > Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or without > Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory > transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and Purchase > Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand inventory > transfer functionalities in the future. > > We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference. > http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment > > Regards, > James Yong > > On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah wrote: > > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment that > > needs to change hands between source and destination facility as a > > part of single operational system. If we are willing to take Order > > model route, then is it possible that we introduce a new order type > > 'Replenishment Order (RO)' or 'Transfer Order' along with new Shipment > > Type ââ¬ËTransfer Shipmentââ¬â¢. And allow to have these ROs processed > > through this single transfer shipment. > > What it would mean is that: > > > >1. Create RO with Shipping Facility (i.e. originating > >DC/Warehouse/Store) and Receiving Facility (i.e. destination > >DC/Warehouse/Store). Possibly with same ââ¬ËBill/Ship From > > Vendorââ¬â¢ and > >ââ¬ËBill/Ship to Customerââ¬â¢ party id (as long as both > > originating and > >destination facilities are owned by same registered company or business > >entity). > >2. Allow to selectively reserve Inventory Items against RO items (even > >if it means overriding existing reservations). > >3. Allow warehouse/facility to group all common destination RO in a > >single ââ¬ËTransfer Shipmentââ¬â¢ during picking. > >4. Once shipment is packed/shipped from originating facility then move > >its status to ââ¬ËShippedââ¬â¢. At the same time linked > > ROââ¬â¢s status can > > also be > >marked as ââ¬ËShippedââ¬â¢. This should affect the on Hand to the > > tune of > > shipped > >units. > >5. Generate only a separate Tax Invoice (if applicable) against linked > >RO. > >6. Allow Destination Facility to ââ¬ËReceiveââ¬â¢ the > > ââ¬ËShippedââ¬â¢ RO > > (similar to > >PO receiving) but under the very same linked Transfer Shipment that was > >shipped from originating facility. This should affect the On hand to > > the > >tune of received units. > >7. Once whole Shipment is successfully received, move the shipment to > >ââ¬ËReceivedââ¬â¢ status. And at the same time linked RO can also > > be > > marked as > >ââ¬ËCompletedââ¬â¢. > >8. Hit the necessary and relevant GL accounts and posting in the > > process > >wherever needed. > > > > > > > > I am not sure about level of technical changes involved against other > > suggested approaches, so please feel free to ignore if it looks over > > complicated. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Swapnil > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Vaibhav Jain [mailto:vaibhav.j...@hotwaxsystems.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:46 PM > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > > Subject: Re: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > > > Thanks Swapnil for the detailed business scenarios. > > > > > > > > Thanks James for the reply. > > > > > > > > I just want to convey that there is no need to use a separate data > > model for inventory transfer. We can use order data model for inven
RE: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
Thanks all your suggestions. I think similarity of the discussed requirements with ordering flow lead to the suggestions to use Order model. I don't have strong preference to use one over another as long as we are able to support bulk of the discussed requirements in this thread in a less complicated, easy to maintain and most flexible way. If we all are in agreement to take Inventory Transfer route then let's cut a JIRA to proceed with it. Thanks, Swapnil -Original Message- From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:27 PM To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records Hi all, Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or without Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and Purchase Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand inventory transfer functionalities in the future. We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference. http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment Regards, James Yong On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah wrote: > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment that > needs to change hands between source and destination facility as a > part of single operational system. If we are willing to take Order > model route, then is it possible that we introduce a new order type > 'Replenishment Order (RO)' or 'Transfer Order' along with new Shipment > Type ‘Transfer Shipment’. And allow to have these ROs processed > through this single transfer shipment. > What it would mean is that: > >1. Create RO with Shipping Facility (i.e. originating >DC/Warehouse/Store) and Receiving Facility (i.e. destination >DC/Warehouse/Store). Possibly with same ‘Bill/Ship From Vendor’ and >‘Bill/Ship to Customer’ party id (as long as both originating and >destination facilities are owned by same registered company or business >entity). >2. Allow to selectively reserve Inventory Items against RO items (even >if it means overriding existing reservations). >3. Allow warehouse/facility to group all common destination RO in a >single ‘Transfer Shipment’ during picking. >4. Once shipment is packed/shipped from originating facility then move >its status to ‘Shipped’. At the same time linked RO’s status can > also be >marked as ‘Shipped’. This should affect the on Hand to the tune of > shipped >units. >5. Generate only a separate Tax Invoice (if applicable) against linked >RO. >6. Allow Destination Facility to ‘Receive’ the ‘Shipped’ RO > (similar to >PO receiving) but under the very same linked Transfer Shipment that was >shipped from originating facility. This should affect the On hand to > the >tune of received units. >7. Once whole Shipment is successfully received, move the shipment to >‘Received’ status. And at the same time linked RO can also be > marked as >‘Completed’. >8. Hit the necessary and relevant GL accounts and posting in the > process >wherever needed. > > > > I am not sure about level of technical changes involved against other > suggested approaches, so please feel free to ignore if it looks over > complicated. > > > > Thanks, > > Swapnil > > > > -Original Message- > From: Vaibhav Jain [mailto:vaibhav.j...@hotwaxsystems.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:46 PM > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Subject: Re: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > > > Hello All, > > > > Thanks Swapnil for the detailed business scenarios. > > > > Thanks James for the reply. > > > > I just want to convey that there is no need to use a separate data > model for inventory transfer. We can use order data model for inventory > transfer. > > > > We can create a SO from one facility which create an automated PO for > another facility. Inventory transfer will be done using sales/purchase > order. > > > > Stock move is used for intra-warehouse inventory transfer while > inventory transfer is for inter-warehouse inventory transfer. > > > > We can achieve inventory transfer using order data model instead of > using separate data model for inventory transfer. > > > >1. On the basis of from party and to party we can identify that > order is > >transfer order(In transfer order fromParty and toParty are same). > >2. status of inventory transfer can be maintained in OrderStatus > entity. > >3. Tax is applied or not can be configu
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
Hi all, Having suggested possible entity changes to both approaches (with or without Order entity), I prefer not to make use of Order entity for inventory transfer. Order entity is currently shared by Sales Order and Purchase Order. Using Order for transfer may make it harder to expand inventory transfer functionalities in the future. We can also look at OpenTap's implementation for reference. http://www.opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Transfer_Shipment Regards, James Yong On 2017-10-25 11:43, Swapnil Shah wrote: > Let's keep in mind that in reality it's the same single shipment that needs > to change hands between source and destination facility as a part of single > operational system. If we are willing to take Order model route, then is it > possible that we introduce a new order type 'Replenishment Order (RO)' or > 'Transfer Order' along with new Shipment Type âTransfer Shipmentâ. And > allow to have these ROs processed through this single transfer shipment. > What it would mean is that: > >1. Create RO with Shipping Facility (i.e. originating >DC/Warehouse/Store) and Receiving Facility (i.e. destination >DC/Warehouse/Store). Possibly with same âBill/Ship From Vendorâ and >âBill/Ship to Customerâ party id (as long as both originating and >destination facilities are owned by same registered company or business >entity). >2. Allow to selectively reserve Inventory Items against RO items (even >if it means overriding existing reservations). >3. Allow warehouse/facility to group all common destination RO in a >single âTransfer Shipmentâ during picking. >4. Once shipment is packed/shipped from originating facility then move >its status to âShippedâ. At the same time linked ROâs status can > also be >marked as âShippedâ. This should affect the on Hand to the tune of > shipped >units. >5. Generate only a separate Tax Invoice (if applicable) against linked >RO. >6. Allow Destination Facility to âReceiveâ the âShippedâ RO > (similar to >PO receiving) but under the very same linked Transfer Shipment that was >shipped from originating facility. This should affect the On hand to the >tune of received units. >7. Once whole Shipment is successfully received, move the shipment to >âReceivedâ status. And at the same time linked RO can also be marked as >âCompletedâ. >8. Hit the necessary and relevant GL accounts and posting in the process >wherever needed. > > > > I am not sure about level of technical changes involved against other > suggested approaches, so please feel free to ignore if it looks over > complicated. > > > > Thanks, > > Swapnil > > > > -Original Message- > From: Vaibhav Jain [mailto:vaibhav.j...@hotwaxsystems.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 6:46 PM > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Subject: Re: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > > > Hello All, > > > > Thanks Swapnil for the detailed business scenarios. > > > > Thanks James for the reply. > > > > I just want to convey that there is no need to use a separate data model > for inventory transfer. We can use order data model for inventory transfer. > > > > We can create a SO from one facility which create an automated PO for > another facility. Inventory transfer will be done using sales/purchase > order. > > > > Stock move is used for intra-warehouse inventory transfer while inventory > transfer is for inter-warehouse inventory transfer. > > > > We can achieve inventory transfer using order data model instead of using > separate data model for inventory transfer. > > > >1. On the basis of from party and to party we can identify that order is > >transfer order(In transfer order fromParty and toParty are same). > >2. status of inventory transfer can be maintained in OrderStatus entity. > >3. Tax is applied or not can be configurable. > >4. Shipment is already associated with order data model. > >5. Order adjustment can be used to record adjustments. > >6. The Orderitem entity can be used to transfer multiple products at a > >time. > >7. Reservation and issuance are already working in order data model. > >8. The OrderContent entity can be used to attach Stock transfer > >document(legal document vary according to country law) with inventory > >transfer. > > > > Please correct me if I missed something. > > > > Thanks & Regards > > -- > > > > Vaibhav Jain > > Hotwax Systems, > > vaibhav.j...@hotwaxsystems.com > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:54 PM, James Yong wrote: > > > > > Hi Swapnil, > > > > > > You may want to consider having the following modifications: > > > > > > 1) Item Issuance & Shipment Receipt entities: Add columns (i.e. > > > InventoryTransferHeaderId & InventoryTransferId ) to support inventory > > > transfer with shipment. > > > > > > 2) Invent
RE: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
James, There is inherent & conceptual difference between Inventory transfer and Orders for any given business and hence it would better serve to first do proper due diligence. I would try to share few pointers on other thread if that can facilitate in any which way. Thanks, Swapnil -Original Message- From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 9:22 PM To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records Hi Swapnil, Thanks for explaining the business case for associating Shipment and Inventory Transfer. Good we have common agreement on using Inventory Transfer Header entity to manage group transfer. For Inventory Transfer that involves Shipment, the approach by Vaibhav to reuse the Shipment to Order relation seems easier. So I will share my thoughts on Vaibhav's reply next. Best Regards, James Yong On 2017-10-17 02:43, Swapnil Shah wrote: > Hi James, > As per the very nature of any business establishment, generally > Manufacturing Facilities or Distribution Centers(warehouses) or Stores > (which we term as facilities) of a single business entity are located > at different geographical areas. Any kind of stock movement across > these facilities needs to be shipped thorough preferred choice of > carrier or mode and hence the shipment association with Inventory > Transfer could be helpful. Any outbound shipment from originating > facility should be receivable at destination facility as inbound shipment. > > Thanks, > Swapnil > > > -Original Message- > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 9:26 PM > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Subject: Re: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > Hi Swapnil, > > Shipment is currently used for Delivery and Goods Inwards. > Why would you want a Shipment for Inventory Transfer? > > Regards, > James Yong > > On 2017-10-16 21:32, Swapnil Shah wrote: > > Yes James, > > ITH should work. I would prefer to have ITH tightly coupled with > > InventoryTransfer(IT) i.e. even in case of single item transfer > > create corresponding entries in ITH and IT both to maintain data integrity. > > Also, We can try tying up Inventory Transfer with Shipment through > > ITH itself or a separate entity e.g., InventoryTransferShipment. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Swapnil > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > > Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:26 PM > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > > Subject: Re: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > > > Hi Swapnil, > > > > Another possible solution is to have an header entity, e.g. > > InventoryTransferHeader (ITH), containing additional or common info > > related to the group transfer. > > For group transfer, ITH is created and each InventoryTransfer will > > contain a FK to ITH. > > For single transfer, ITH can be empty. > > > > Regards, > > James Yong > > > > On 2017-10-14 18:59, Swapnil Shah > wrote: > > > Folks, > > > One very frequent use case that we encounter is that any transfer > > > request initiated from one facility to another is generally for > > > multiple products as they all need to go in a single shipment > > > against transfer request so as to be cost effective. > > > > > > Current schema has the limitation that any given inventory > > > transfer can only be for single inventory item (and hence only one product). > > > Would it make sense and be feasible if we enhance the existing > > > design such that multiple products/inventory can be tied with a > > > single transfer > > > (InventoryTransferId) request (possibly by having > > > InventoryTransferId > > > + InventoryItemId as PK) and shipment is tied up with it as well. > > > + Of > > > course by leaving a proper audit trail via InventoryItemDetail etc. > > > > > > Let's share any further thoughts or similar business cases and > > > then we can try to support it if it is generic enough. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Swapnil > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 9:36 PM > > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > > > > > Hi all, > > >
Re: RE: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records
Hi Swapnil, Thanks for explaining the business case for associating Shipment and Inventory Transfer. Good we have common agreement on using Inventory Transfer Header entity to manage group transfer. For Inventory Transfer that involves Shipment, the approach by Vaibhav to reuse the Shipment to Order relation seems easier. So I will share my thoughts on Vaibhav's reply next. Best Regards, James Yong On 2017-10-17 02:43, Swapnil Shah wrote: > Hi James, > As per the very nature of any business establishment, generally > Manufacturing Facilities or Distribution Centers(warehouses) or Stores > (which we term as facilities) of a single business entity are located at > different geographical areas. Any kind of stock movement across these > facilities needs to be shipped thorough preferred choice of carrier or > mode and hence the shipment association with Inventory Transfer could be > helpful. Any outbound shipment from originating facility should be > receivable at destination facility as inbound shipment. > > Thanks, > Swapnil > > > -Original Message- > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 9:26 PM > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Subject: Re: RE: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > Hi Swapnil, > > Shipment is currently used for Delivery and Goods Inwards. > Why would you want a Shipment for Inventory Transfer? > > Regards, > James Yong > > On 2017-10-16 21:32, Swapnil Shah wrote: > > Yes James, > > ITH should work. I would prefer to have ITH tightly coupled with > > InventoryTransfer(IT) i.e. even in case of single item transfer create > > corresponding entries in ITH and IT both to maintain data integrity. > > Also, We can try tying up Inventory Transfer with Shipment through ITH > > itself or a separate entity e.g., InventoryTransferShipment. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Swapnil > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > > Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:26 PM > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > > Subject: Re: RE: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > > > Hi Swapnil, > > > > Another possible solution is to have an header entity, e.g. > > InventoryTransferHeader (ITH), containing additional or common info > > related to the group transfer. > > For group transfer, ITH is created and each InventoryTransfer will > > contain a FK to ITH. > > For single transfer, ITH can be empty. > > > > Regards, > > James Yong > > > > On 2017-10-14 18:59, Swapnil Shah > wrote: > > > Folks, > > > One very frequent use case that we encounter is that any transfer > > > request initiated from one facility to another is generally for > > > multiple products as they all need to go in a single shipment > > > against transfer request so as to be cost effective. > > > > > > Current schema has the limitation that any given inventory transfer > > > can only be for single inventory item (and hence only one product). > > > Would it make sense and be feasible if we enhance the existing > > > design such that multiple products/inventory can be tied with a > > > single transfer > > > (InventoryTransferId) request (possibly by having > > > InventoryTransferId > > > + InventoryItemId as PK) and shipment is tied up with it as well. Of > > > course by leaving a proper audit trail via InventoryItemDetail etc. > > > > > > Let's share any further thoughts or similar business cases and then > > > we can try to support it if it is generic enough. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Swapnil > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: James Yong [mailto:jamesy...@apache.org] > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 9:36 PM > > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Quantity missing for inventory transfer records > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > It is better to add InventoryTransferId column to Inventory Item > > > Detail > > > (IID) table so that we easily link the IID record to the Inventory > > > Transfer table. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Regards, > > > James Yong > > > > > > On 2017-10-13 23:18, "James Yong" wrote: > > > > Hi Suraj, > > > > > > > > Shouldn't the transfer detail be stored at Inventory Item Detail > > table? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > James Yong > > > > > > > > On 2017-10-13 16:44, Suraj Khurana > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > While creating inventory transfers, a new inventory item is > > > > > created and successfully gets updated after completing inventory > > transfer. > > > > > As per current implementation, we don't store transferred > > > > > quantity anywhere in *InventoryTransfer *entity and quantity is > > > > > only available on the newly created inventory item. Problem is, > > > > > it gets deluded on time being and user won't get exact quantity > > > > > for which > > > inventory transfer was initialized. > > > > > > > > > > IMO, we should maintain transferred quantity at > > > > > *InventoryTransfer *entity as well for proper his
