Hi Adrian,
I am trying to use it for my own company but see chances for my
customers too as long as it is working reasonably?
looking forward to work together
Regards
Hans
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 04:05 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Hans & Jacopo,
>
> I agree with Hans - many things are wrong wi
Hans & Jacopo,
I agree with Hans - many things are wrong with that application. I am working
on a project that will make much use of HR - so I can work on some of the
problems. I expect to start working on it mid February or early March.
-Adrian
> Sorry Jacopo,
>
> many things either wrong o
Sorry Jacopo,
many things either wrong or missing on this application...
redirecting to showing the tabs is only possible when the 'create'
service returns the key of the entity (3 fields) and not only the
perfReviewId.
Regards,
Hans
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 17:19 +0100, Jacopo Cappellato w
Ah yes,
I can recreate the same after taking an update: it is caused by your today
changes (rev. 1059556), I guess you will be able to fix it on your own.
Jacopo
On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>
>> After adding a review
On Jan 16, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> After adding a review one still has to go back to he find option, find
> the review again and then finally items can add be added.
This is not what I can see in my local box, please have a second look.
Jacopo
Jacopo, what shall i say?
Having two additional fields in an already unique key, sorry i do not
see the benefit, also because it is not following the general pattern
used in invoice, quote and order etc. where the there is a header and
items.
You seem to have strong feelings keeping this, so be m
On Jan 15, 2011, at 6:45 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> 1) we revert the commit (or part of it) in which you altered the pk of the
> PerfReviewItem entity; if possible and easy to do, we can fix the
> screens/services that were not working before your commit
Hans, thanks for reverting that code
Hi Hans,
On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:55 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> I do not have the book here, but just checked the system and there the
> perfReviewId is already a unique value, why have employeePartyId and
> roleId also in he primary key?
>
Because the performance review is done for
Hi Jacopo,
I do not have the book here, but just checked the system and there the
perfReviewId is already a unique value, why have employeePartyId and
roleId also in he primary key?
I suggest to change the PerfReviw entity also and take the
employeePartyId and roleId also out of the primary key.
Hans,
I think that you are not interpreting correctly this part of the data model,
please have a deeper look at it before going on with these modifications.
Also, with reference to the Data Model Resource Book (even if we do not have to
strictly follow what it is described there), I can't see yo
Ok i did not see the unusual index of the PerfRreview too: which
includes the employeeId and role. This is also not according the
dataresource book. I would even suggest to take the employeeparty and
role out of this key too and follow the general pattern that the
perfReview entity has a single ke
I changed this entity according the datamodel resource boook and what
the forms and services where expecting,
please note the fields were not added or removed on the forms.
Regards,
Hans
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 09:59 +0100, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> could you please better explain w
Hi Hans,
could you please better explain what was the error and why you have decided to
modify the PerfReviewItem entity?
I am asking you this because, even if I don't know much about this area of the
data model, from what I understand:
- PerfReview is used to define an employee performance revi
13 matches
Mail list logo
