David,
I try to understand things deeper. Many questions...
I said :
<<So as I thought it's better to handle different currencies in different
stores for now. Am I missing something here ? >>
Is that always true ? Is it a recommended best practice to do so (having 1
store by currency) ? Are there other scenarios,
future scenarios ?
You said :
>No. The price stuff will look for prices according to the currency
>set on the ProductStore.
and
> > NO! Not totally correct. In this case of the ProductStore currency was
> > USD then the virtual product's prices would be used. If the ProductStore
> > currency was EUR, then the variant product's prices would be used.
So why the string "Default Currency Uom Id" for the currency field in
Catalog/Store ? Would not "Currency Uom Id" be more
appropriate as this data looks like more a constraint (can't be overriden), at
least for products ? Are there other reasons to put
*Default* ?
In Undersun User Documentation (thanks David and Andy for this !) I read in
explanation of the field "Default Currency Uom Id" :
"Which national currency will be used if none is
specified.". Hence "Default" I suppose. But it seems not to act as a default
value from what you stated above David. On the
contrary, it specifies the currency that will be chosen between several. I use
chosen because I can't see a case where "no currency
is specified" (and where a default value will then be used). Because when you
define a price a currency is always set. And
currencies are only used in prices, isn'it ?
I suppose also that "Product Store Group" has no effect on currency ? Or in
other words, may the "Product Store Group" concept be
used to deal with multi-currencies ?
I understand that a product may be shared between stores thru
catalogs/categories and may have prices in each currency needed by
each store. In such cases, one more time "Default Currency Uom Id" defines the
currency of the store and not "a default currency for
this store if none is specified", isn'it ?
I agree with Jonathon that the error message is too general and should be
changed to help users identifie the real origin of the
problem. But note that this is at the functionnal level. Idid not look at the
code. Perhaps under the hood it's more complicated...
Especially if the routine that calculates prices is widely generalised.
Perhaps it's only a matter of words, replacing "Default Currency Uom Id" by
"Currency Uom Id for this store" and explaining more
with an HTML-title-tooltip might be enough ?
Also I'm here trying to grab knowledge at the User level (unlike for instance
Jonathon wich claims to reverse) and perhaps OFBiz was
not conceived in this spirit. That might explain the lack of *advanced* user's
documentation (advanced documentation not user). Or
simply ERPs can't be or rather are difficult to be documented for users (I'm
not an ERP veterans) ?
Subtle slight nuances, great effects... Everybody still there ? Not sure even
if I am...
Actually what I'm trying to do is to find a way to put the most possible
"advanced and accurate documentation" easily at reach of
users, that's all. In order to do so I tested the rendering of HTML field title
attribute (tooltip in widgets) in 4 browsers on
Windows.
Browser length max duration wrap lines
---------------------------------------------------------
Firefox 1.5.0.9 80 char 5 sec never
IE 6 at least 1000 5 sec if in source
IE 7 at least 1000 5 sec if in source
Opera 9.02. at least 1000 no limit always
The most consistent behaviour is obtained by IE :(. Here Firefox (All Mozilla
browser I guess) is not a good candidate. I
desesperately
looked for an extension (or even an hack, mm...mm) but did not find any.
It might be interesting to have behaviours on Linux (Mmm..Gnome, KDE, XFCE,...)
and Mac
Note also that title used as tooltip is often not recommended for accessiblity
reasons (many screenreaders don't read title text by
default). But users may change this default.
http://www.sf.id.au/WE05/indexa.html
Interesting article on <abbr> tag also :
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/hattrick (takes some time to read)
Thanks
Jacques
> Haha! Comical tragedies. Sigh.
>
> Thanks for that very concise and definitive "documentation" for this aspect,
> David.
>
> I can understand how Jacques (and me) could've easily been misled by our test
> cases; outcome a
> little too ambiguous (no proper warning messages?). Digging into codes
> directly would've avoided
> that "misunderstanding" between us (users) and OFBiz (application).
>
> Jonathon
>
> David E. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 2, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >
> >> Jonathon, David,
> >>
> >>> David,
> >>>
> >>> As I understand from Jacques issue descriptions:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Price set for Virtual product in USD
> >>> 2. Price set for related Variant product in EUR
> >>> 3. Price for Variant is not used at all.
> >>>
> >>> If that's the case, it is a bug.
> >>>
> >>> I haven't tested this out.
> >>>
> >>> Jacques, is the above correct?
> >>
> >> Yes totaly correct.
> >
> > NO! Not totally correct. In this case of the ProductStore currency was
> > USD then the virtual product's prices would be used. If the ProductStore
> > currency was EUR, then the variant product's prices would be used.
> >
> > This all sounds like a misunderstanding.
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >> David answered
> >> <<The only reason to put a price on the virtual product is to act as a
> >> default, so it is totally optional and for many product sets may not
> >> exist at all. That is true in general, and could even vary by
> >> currency depending on what people want to do with it. In other words,
> >> I don't think we should put in a check or requirement like that
> >> because there are perfectly valid scenarios where you would not want
> >> that.>>
> >>
> >> Mmm... Strange that a default value might not be overriden in some
> >> case, isn'it ?
> >>
> >> BTW I agree that it's not a big deal. Just wanted a better interface,
> >> could this requirement break something ?
> >>
> >> I just tested without prices for virtual and a price in USD for a
> >> variant and another variant with EUR for the same store having USD
> >> as default currency. The variant with EUR price is not accepted :
> >> * Could not find a valid price for the product with ID
> >> [WG-9943-B4], not adding to cart.
> >>
> >> So as I thought it's better to handle different currencies in
> >> different stores for now. Am I missing something here ? Else this last
> >> fact close this discussion and should be reported as best user practice.
> >>
> >> Because I guess we need more user doc than dev at this moment...
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >>
> >>> Jonathon
> >>>
> >>> David E. Jones wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see any problem here.
> >>>>
> >>>> The code looks for price information on the product. If no price
> >>>> information for a certain type, currency, etc is not found and the
> >>>> product is a variant it will find the corresponding virtual product and
> >>>> look for the price information there.
> >>>>
> >>>> What else could/would it do?
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the bug here?
> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 1, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Finally, I want to make an abstract of what I understand :
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Variants herit prices from virtual.
> >>>>> Variants may override prices from virtual, hence have different
> >>>>> currencies than virtual.
> >>>>> But this last functionnality (regarding currency at least) is not
> >>>>> working yet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is that correct ? If yes, I will open a Jira issue for this peculiar
> >>>>> case where I will propose to restrict currency in variants to
> >>>>> virtual's, for the moment.
> >>>>> Of course I understand that in a perfect world we should support
> >>>>> different currencies for different variants. But I guess this can
> >>>>> wait... Because I'm only reasoning at the businness level for the
> >>>>> moment. And I guess at the technological level things may be less
> >>>>> clear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for your attention
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jonathon,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jacques,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I was asking myself, in a principe of reality, if we should not,
> >>>>>>>> for the
> >>>>>>>> moment, restrict variants currencies to their virtual's.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Agreed. This will tie up that "loose end". Rather than having
> >>>>>>> "undefined behavior" (for multiple
> >>>>>>> currencies), we should at least let users know that their virtual
> >>>>>>> products' currencies count and
> >>>>>>> the related variants' don't. Or better yet, prevent users from using
> >>>>>>> a different currency for
> >>>>>>> variants.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Later was what I was suggesting. it's easy to do, in one word :
> >>>>>> pragmatic ! I think I will create at least a Jira issue for this
> >>>>> if
> >>>>>> nobody disagree (with strong arguments ;o)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A sticky issue: which currency/price takes precedence, variant or
> >>>>>>>>> virtual?
> >>>>>>>>> I'd say variant prices should override virtual.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes variants should override. But has this a sense ? Because
> >>>>>>>> virtuals are
> >>>>>>>> never used as product, they are abstract (in Oriented Object
> >>>>>>>> sense). So I
> >>>>>>>> wonder if having a currency different for virtual and variants
> >>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>> sense. Having variants with different currencies is another
> >>>>>>>> problem...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hmm. In OO sense, it doesn't make sense that virtuals have a price
> >>>>>>> even.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes true, but difficult to manage because product UI is generalised
> >>>>>> and morevover because of your point below.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, in
> >>>>>>> user-interface sense, users would want to have a "standard price"
> >>>>>>> set for all variants, for ease
> >>>>>>> of use if for nothing else.
> >>>>>>> Hence, I can see why some users might want to tie currency/price to
> >>>>>>> virtuals.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes true, OO heritage ;o). So remains the case of different
> >>>>>> currencies for different variants. But is that realistic (this is a
> >>>>> real
> >>>>>> question for real people) ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, at least we share/discuss what we know so that others can grab
> >>>>>>> our info and enhance OFBiz,
> >>>>>>> though we ourselves have no time to fix this issue. :P
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We may hope so, but I would prefer to do job because else I will wait
> >>>>>> for sure. I just want to know if nobody see drawbacks in
> >>>>>> arguments above, or have better ideas ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Jonathon,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: "Jonathon -- Improov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>>> I think David's point about supporting multiple currencies is
> >>>>>>>>> valid, ie OFBiz should operate that
> >>>>>>>>> way. It'll be nice to be able to use different currencies for
> >>>>>>>>> different variants (eg. some sold in
> >>>>>>>>> some countries but not in others).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes I totally agree.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However, I strongly suspect that's not exactly how it works now.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree too. Yes for the moment people wanting to deal with
> >>>>>>>> multiple currencies create a store by currency, I guess.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Let me know if anyone needs me to
> >>>>>>>>> help in research; my current project doesn't handle more than 1
> >>>>>>>>> currency... yet.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would create a Jira issue for this. This is not a priority for me
> >>>>>>>> either. And I suspect that it may be a large task to do.
> >>>>> So
> >>>>>>>> that's why I was asking myself, in a principe of reality, if we
> >>>>>>>> should not, for the moment, restrict variants currencies to
> >>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>> virtual's.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A sticky issue: which currency/price takes precedence, variant or
> >>>>>>>>> virtual? I'd say variant prices
> >>>>>>>>> should override virtual.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes variants should override. But has this a sense ? Because
> >>>>>>>> virtuals are never used as product, they are abstract (in
> >>>>> Oriented
> >>>>>>>> Object sense). So I wonder if having a currency different for
> >>>>>>>> virtual and variants have a sense. Having variants with
> >>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> currencies is another problem...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your thoughts
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that it should work like I tried to use it or that we
> >>>>>>>>>> should make it work, or ?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>>>> From: "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>>>> To: <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:45 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Problem in Virtual products
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The point is to support prices in multiple currencies
> >>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -David
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Finally after my apologies I thought a bit about this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Should we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not restrict variants currency to the one set in virtual ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because
> >>>>>>>>>>>> even if someone set variants prices to another currency it will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be used. And this can fool an user as I have been.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I used euro and not dollar for variant prices. So yes, you are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> right Jacopo and sorry
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:02 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Problem in Virtual products
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vamsi
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I am selecting configuration it is not showing the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product price with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK there are no specific prices for variants. If you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> price for a variants this will have no effect. The price
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual product will be used.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that the variant price is used if set, it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon as you add the variant to the cart.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tested it before by creating a default price for WG-9943-B3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was not applied but the virtual price was applied. BTW the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual had also Competitive and List Prices. So I just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tested by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding Competitive and List Prices to the variant WG-9943-B3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am'I missing something here, promotions, prices rules ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
