Re: OFBiz and Attitude Trust
How is it that you are able to extract so many paragraphs out of the few sentences I wrote? What are you trying to achieve here? As far as I can tell you're the only one who has questions about how a contributor becomes a committer. How much detail is required for something that requires a nomination and then a vote? It's a pretty straightforward process. I'll try and respond quickly to sentences posed at questions but I'd really rather not continue to this spiral into deeper and deeper discussion. I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by any kind of numbers? it isn't but it's historically been the case and I haven't noticed it change. Feel free to look up some numbers if you like. And is this complaint/concern you're expressing not the result of the code of conduct for committers, or lack thereof? No, it's a community issue, code review is an important part of open-source and it doesn't require any special access to perform. Why is this now - while we are discussing how to get more committers - a reason for concern? It always been a concern of mine, nothing new in it. I didn't know we were discussing how to get more committers, the thread started out with you querying some of Jacopo's wording. And is this a concern of all PMC Members? I have no idea, we don't hold secret meetings to discuss such things. Isn't it so that committers review code patches by contributors? Of course the committer that intends to commit the patch reviews it. But who reviews the committer? But we also know that committers review committed bugfixes by other committers seldomly. But we trust committers to do the right thing when committing changes, don't we? It's not about doing the right thing, it's about reviewing each others work to ensure quality. Reviews are not about catching a committer intentionally doing something wrong, that's a silly idea. Are you now saying that the PMC is regarding this as something to be concerned about? No, I'm saying it is something I'm concerned about. And that all within this community should be concerned about this? I guess so. That current committers don't apply due diligence when it comes to committing changes? You're stretching a long bow on that one and I never said anything like that. This is one of the frustrating parts of discussing anything with you, you like to take small statements and make outrageous claims based on them. No one commits perfect code and code review is an important part of open source. And that we must have some kind of super-committer policing the committers? Not at all, anyone can review a commit, there is no hierarchy in this community dictating that one must somehow be superior to another in order to question them. Surely this thread is proof of that? With as a result of not having enough super-committers, the entire PMC feels that we must accept that not more eligible contributors are invited to be a committer? The bow stretches further and further. I have no idea how the entire PMC feels. I was merely stating that I think it is a bigger problem than a lack of committers. I wonder, given that you say that you don't speak for any of the other PMC Members - except Jacopo, can each of the other PMC members share her or his viewpoint on this? I've quite clearly stated a few times in this thread that I don't speak for Jacopo. That statement feels like you're trying to troll me when I'm taking time out to discuss your questions with you and I don't appreciate it. The other controversy I can think of is that, while you are trying to explain at great lengths how cautionary the PMC is with respect to inviting new committers (and new PMC members), a contributor with only 178 postings in the user ml, 114 in the dev ml, and about 11 patches submitted and 2 publications in a period of 6 years makes it to become both committer and PMC member within the last 3 months of those 6 years.. You've obviously spent some time doing some serious counting there. To what end? Do you have some issue with the outcome of those votes? Keep in mind however that a few numbers don't in themselves mean anything. The value of a contribution can't be measured by how many emails were sent. On 22/10/2014, at 2:27 pm, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: Scott, I thank you for your patience and eloquence to explain your viewpoint as a PMC Member regarding the subject to every participant in this community. For sure, the willingness of every participant in this community to discuss contentious or controversial issues with an open mind (and with the best interest of the project at heart) is something that will have the consensus of all within this community. We understand that you are expressing only your viewpoint and concerns as only one member of the PMC. I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by any kind of
Re: OFBiz and Attitude Trust
I am not speaking for Scott, but I want to clarify something here. Many times these discussions imply that there is some kind of hierarchy in the community - with the PMC being in charge. As has been stated before, the PMC has very little authority, and the hierarchy that is implied in these discussions goes against the spirit of this community - where we are all peers. So, the PMC does not allow things, nor does it prohibit things. At most, the PMC will advise - and that advice carries with it the collective experience of its members. But, like any advice, it can be ignored. I know there are some in the community who would like to see the PMC take on a statist role and exercise more control over the community, but that is not going to happen. Regarding commit review: There are no metrics for commit review other than the messages on the dev mailing list. When you see a reply to a commit message, that reply is a de-facto commit review. Looking through the dev mailing list history will give you a good sense of the review activity. Even then, the metric is not accurate because commits might be reviewed without generating a reply. Personally, I try to review framework commits. My free time is very limited, so I need to prioritize what I review. From my perspective, a regression introduced in an application (where it affects only one application) is not as serious as a regression introduced in the framework (where it affects ALL applications). This is my review strategy based on my preference - it has nothing to do with the PMC. The PMC does not tell me what to review and how much to review. So, when you say things like: the PMC allows major extensions (improvements) to be committed without prior review - you are misunderstanding how this community works. The PMC does not allow or prohibit commits. If there is a concern about a commit, the PMC will offer advice about that commit. That advice can be ignored. If anyone strongly objects to the commit, then the commit can be vetoed by a PMC member - in which case the commit SHOULD be reverted (this depends on the cooperation of the committer). There was one case of a committer who refused to revert a vetoed commit, and threatened a commit war if anyone else tried to revert it. That resulted in a year-long discussion, and eventually the committer grudgingly agreed to let someone else revert the commit. That episode resulted in hurt feelings and it seriously undermined the cooperation in the community. I mention it because I want to stress the importance of mutual cooperation - without it, the community breaks down. It also illustrates the self-imposed limitations the PMC has - the PMC did not kick out the uncooperative committer, but instead continued to plead for common sense and cooperation. So, that is how this community works. We are all volunteers, we are all members of a minarchist community, and we all need to compromise and get along with each other for the benefit of the common good. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 10/22/2014 2:27 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: Scott, I thank you for your patience and eloquence to explain your viewpoint as a PMC Member regarding the subject to every participant in this community. For sure, the willingness of every participant in this community to discuss contentious or controversial issues with an open mind (and with the best interest of the project at heart) is something that will have the consensus of all within this community. We understand that you are expressing only your viewpoint and concerns as only one member of the PMC. I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by any kind of numbers? And is this complaint/concern you're expressing not the result of the code of conduct for committers, or lack thereof? Why is this now - while we are discussing how to get more committers - a reason for concern? And is this a concern of all PMC Members? We have had very little complaints about such code commits up to now. And if there were any, these issues were resolved quite fast. Isn't it so that committers review code patches by contributors? And that it is part of the responsibilities of committers. But we also know that committers review committed bugfixes by other committers seldomly. But we trust committers to do the right thing when committing changes, don't we? Are you now saying that the PMC is regarding this as something to be concerned about? And that all within this community should be concerned about this? That current committers don't apply due diligence when it comes to committing changes? And that we must have some kind of super-committer policing the committers? With as a result of not having enough super-committers, the entire PMC feels that we must accept that not more eligible contributors are invited to be a committer? I wonder, given that you say that you don't speak for any of the other PMC
Re: OFBiz and Attitude Trust
Le 22/10/2014 08:17, Scott Gray a écrit : it's a community issue, code review is an important part of open-source and it doesn't require any special access to perform. A very important point, thanks to highlight that Scott! jacques PS: sorry if I tore too much parts apart, I just want to highlight it even more!
Re: OFBiz and Attitude Trust
Hi Jacques, i felt the same ! So +1 ! Gil Le 22/10/2014 11:59, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Le 22/10/2014 08:17, Scott Gray a écrit : it's a community issue, code review is an important part of open-source and it doesn't require any special access to perform. A very important point, thanks to highlight that Scott! jacques PS: sorry if I tore too much parts apart, I just want to highlight it even more! -- www.nereide.fr Gil Portenseigne Consultant ERP OFBiz Société Néréide 3b Les isles 37270 Veretz Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61 Mob : 06 82 740 444 www.nereide.fr http://www.nereide.fr Membre d'OFBiz France www.ofbiz-fr.org http://www.ofbiz-fr.org
else-comparequestion
I am trying to do some logic. if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar operator=less value=0 do something else-compare do something else /else-compare /if-compare My do something else is never called. I can do two if's ok, but wondered if I am doing something wrong when I want to do a else in minilang. - Joel Fradkin -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/else-compare-question-tp4657240.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: else-comparequestion
Hi Joel try this in minilang : if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar operator=less value=0 !-- do -- else !-- do -- /else /if-compare If you're working with eclipse, it's best to configure your xml catalog, to have auto completion based on the xsd. Gil Le 22/10/2014 17:15, joelfrad...@gmail.com a écrit : I am trying to do some logic. if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar operator=less value=0 do something else-compare do something else /else-compare /if-compare My do something else is never called. I can do two if's ok, but wondered if I am doing something wrong when I want to do a else in minilang. - Joel Fradkin -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/else-compare-question-tp4657240.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- www.nereide.fr Gil Portenseigne Consultant ERP OFBiz Société Néréide 3b Les isles 37270 Veretz Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61 Mob : 06 82 740 444 www.nereide.fr http://www.nereide.fr Membre d'OFBiz France www.ofbiz-fr.org http://www.ofbiz-fr.org
Re: else-comparequestion
The way i use to set xml catalog in eclipse : File - Import Select XML - XML Catalog Then choose in the root of your ofbiz checkout the .xmlcatalog.xml file and validate. After that ctrl + space will guide you into your xml coding. Gil Le 22/10/2014 17:45, gil portenseigne a écrit : Hi Joel try this in minilang : if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar operator=less value=0 !-- do -- else !-- do -- /else /if-compare If you're working with eclipse, it's best to configure your xml catalog, to have auto completion based on the xsd. Gil Le 22/10/2014 17:15, joelfrad...@gmail.com a écrit : I am trying to do some logic. if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar operator=less value=0 do something else-compare do something else /else-compare /if-compare My do something else is never called. I can do two if's ok, but wondered if I am doing something wrong when I want to do a else in minilang. - Joel Fradkin -- View this message in context:http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/else-compare-question-tp4657240.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- www.nereide.fr Gil Portenseigne Consultant ERP OFBiz Société Néréide 3b Les isles 37270 Veretz Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61 Mob : 06 82 740 444 www.nereide.fr http://www.nereide.fr Membre d'OFBiz France www.ofbiz-fr.org http://www.ofbiz-fr.org -- www.nereide.fr Gil Portenseigne Consultant ERP OFBiz Société Néréide 3b Les isles 37270 Veretz Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61 Mob : 06 82 740 444 www.nereide.fr http://www.nereide.fr Membre d'OFBiz France www.ofbiz-fr.org http://www.ofbiz-fr.org
Re: else-comparequestion
Thank you. I will check it out. Also will see about the eclipse settings you mentioned. - Joel Fradkin -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/else-compare-question-tp4657240p4657245.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Need to modfy createInventoryItemVariance
If any one is interested, I finished and it works, removing the oldest
inventory first.
simple-method method-name=createPhysicalInventoryAndVariance
short-description=Create a PhysicalInventory and an InventoryItemVariance
entity-condition entity-name=InventoryItem
list=inventoryItemList
condition-list combine=or
condition-expr field-name=productId operator=equals
from-field=parameters.productId/
condition-expr field-name=quantityOnHandTotal
operator=not-equals value=0/
/condition-list
order-by field-name=datetimeReceived/
/entity-condition
set field=MyVariance from-field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
type=BigDecimal/
set field=MyCompareValue value=1 type=BigDecimal/
iterate list=inventoryItemList entry=inventoryItem
set field=parameters.inventoryItemId
from-field=inventoryItem.inventoryItemId/
if-not-empty field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
operator=not-equals value=0
if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
operator=greater value=0
set from-field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
field=parameters.availableToPromiseVar/
set-service-fields service-name=createPhysicalInventory
map=parameters to-map=createPhysicalInventoryMap/
call-service service-name=createPhysicalInventory
in-map-name=createPhysicalInventoryMap
result-to-field result-name=physicalInventoryId
field=parameters.physicalInventoryId/
result-to-result result-name=physicalInventoryId
service-result-name=physicalInventoryId/
/call-service
set-service-fields
service-name=createInventoryItemVariance map=parameters
to-map=createInventoryItemVarianceMap/
call-service service-name=createInventoryItemVariance
in-map-name=createInventoryItemVarianceMap/
set field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar value=0
type=BigDecimal/
/if-compare
if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
operator=less value=0
set field=MyCompareValue from-field =
${inventoryItem.quantityOnHandTotal + parameters.quantityOnHandVar}
type=BigDecimal default-value=0/
if-compare field=MyCompareValue
operator=greater-equals value=0 type=BigDecimal
set from-field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
field=parameters.availableToPromiseVar/
set-service-fields
service-name=createPhysicalInventory map=parameters
to-map=createPhysicalInventoryMap/
call-service service-name=createPhysicalInventory
in-map-name=createPhysicalInventoryMap
result-to-field result-name=physicalInventoryId
field=parameters.physicalInventoryId/
result-to-result result-name=physicalInventoryId
service-result-name=physicalInventoryId/
/call-service
set-service-fields
service-name=createInventoryItemVariance map=parameters
to-map=createInventoryItemVarianceMap/
call-service service-name=createInventoryItemVariance
in-map-name=createInventoryItemVarianceMap/
set field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar value=0
type=BigDecimal/
/if-compare
if-compare field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
operator=not-equals value=0
if-compare field=inventoryItem.quantityOnHandTotal
operator=greater value=0
set field=MyVariance
from-field=inventoryItem.quantityOnHandTotal type=BigDecimal/
set field=MyVariance value=${MyVariance * -1}/
set field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
value=${MyVariance} type=BigDecimal/
set from-field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
field=parameters.availableToPromiseVar/
set-service-fields
service-name=createPhysicalInventory map=parameters
to-map=createPhysicalInventoryMap/
call-service service-name=createPhysicalInventory
in-map-name=createPhysicalInventoryMap
result-to-field result-name=physicalInventoryId
field=parameters.physicalInventoryId/
result-to-result
result-name=physicalInventoryId
service-result-name=physicalInventoryId/
/call-service
set-service-fields
service-name=createInventoryItemVariance map=parameters
to-map=createInventoryItemVarianceMap/
call-service
service-name=createInventoryItemVariance
in-map-name=createInventoryItemVarianceMap/
set field=parameters.quantityOnHandVar
from-field=MyCompareValue/
/if-compare
/if-compare
/if-compare
Tool to analyse ML content
Pierre, I know you are interested by numbers/stats about the community. By chance (I don't remember how) I stumbled upon this project recently https://github.com/sbenthall/bigbang Unfortunately it does not include EZML parsing yet, but maybe someone (maybe you or your team) will provide it and then data could be extracted and analysed from our MLs HTH Jacques
Re: date fields
field name=FromDate title=From Day (including unless time is
set)
date-time default-value=${groovy:
org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilDateTime.getMonthStart(org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilDateTime.nowTimestamp())}/
/field
There is a getMonthEnd but not sure how to set timezone and locale.
org.ofbiz.base.util.UtilDateTime.getMonthEnd(stamp, timeZone,
locale)
-
Joel Fradkin
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/date-fields-tp2339580p4657262.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
