David My apologies. I read this comment "It will most likely be rejected." and was not amused. I personally should always refrain from responding to these and will endeavor to do so in the future.
It is obvious to me that most people who currently use Ofbiz like it the way it is or it would have long since been changed. However, as the user base grows, so will the needs. Rejecting an idea out of hand and discouraging people from contributing seems counter-productive just because it is the way most people do it. In this case, if you use properties to control behavior, it doesn't have to be either/or. I've spent three or four months now learning Ofbiz and a month writing code for it. I have contracts now for three years of work based on it. What I write will not be suitable for everyone, but it will be useful to many. I can take the time and write it so that it is easily customizable by the devs who listen here or just bang it out for the current customer and not bother offering it up. I would perfer to contribute my work back to the community. I feel a strong obligation to do so. However, when I read comments like the above I start asking myself, "whats the point of doing the extra work when it will not be accepted?". Some will say that it can still be found in Jira, but unless you monitor the Jira religiously, trying to find unaccepted contributions is painful. In my view, you could have encourages contributions by saying "If it has wide appeal and does not break existing users, we can consider it" instead of "It will most likely be rejected". Just my opinionated jerk self 2 cents. Skip -----Original Message----- From: David E Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:18 PM To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items Wow, in a friendly mood today aren't we? Don't be so quick to judge people. Keep in mind that OFBiz supports companies that don't track inventory in OFBiz, and currently most companies don't do book keeping in OFBiz. It doesn't mean it's sloppy or bad or from malicious intent or that the people who want to do things this way are incompetent, or that the analysts who designed it or developers who created it are incompetent. OFBiz is a collaborative community working together to create a system that can be used (hopefully without too much customization) in a wide variety of businesses and a wide variety of requirements for interactions with other systems and such. Please try not to undermine that. It is the foundation of this effort. If you want something done about this, please frame it in that light. -David On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Skip wrote: > Dave > > I agree that this is a big hole/bug. On the other hand, there are > folks who > don't mind/prefer the sloppiness (I have a customer just like > that). So, > perhaps we could use a property to define the behavior, like: > > ilikesloppybookkeeping=true/false (tongue in cheek) > > However, I would be happy to collaborate to get this done. I want > requirements and automatic backorders issued for out of stock etc > for quick > ship. I was just about to start work on this. We could modify the > existing > service to look for a property and if it exists, do the better > bookkeeping / > automatic ordering. > > This is a hole for me because if my customer has a customer at the > counter > and is selling him some stuff and part of it is on back order, he > has to > exit out of the sales order screen and go to the shipping screen to > get it > all done right. It's a pain and will happen 10 times a day for > him. Fixing > the quickship will take care of it. > > Maybe with the configurable property, the muckity-mucks won't be so > reluctant to accept it. > > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: David E Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:24 PM > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org > Subject: Re: shipments made for out of stock items > > > > On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:41 AM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: > >> The more I think about this, it seems inappropriate for an ERP >> system to allow this. Why would the quick ship service allow a user >> to charge a customers credit card and "ship" a physical product >> that the system "knew" was not available? > > For some users the system doesn't know everything... > >> Before charging the card, the sales person would want to confirm >> that the goods were actually available. Once this was confirmed, it >> would take a facility worker 30 seconds to adjust the inventory, >> leaving an audit trail etc. > > Yes, but not everyone wants to use it this way. > >> To me this seems like a JIRA issue, which should be fixed. >> >> I'll submit the issue and we'll submit a fix. > > It will most likely be rejected. > > -David > > >> Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>> Thank you! >>> >>> David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, there ya go! >>>> >>>> The quick ship order stuff doesn't check stock levels... >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, I should have mentioned that we created a new service to >>>>> automatically create shipments. It calls quickShipOrder as part >>>>> of it's processing. >>>>> -Dave >>>>> >>>>> David E Jones wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you mean by "being created"? >>>>>> >>>>>> There isn't really anything that automatically creates >>>>>> shipments, unless a human does it through some UI like the >>>>>> shipment or packing screens (or a service or something was >>>>>> written to automatically do it somehow). >>>>>> >>>>>> -David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Dave Tenerowicz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It appears that shipments are being created with out of stock >>>>>>> items in an implementation we are doing. I am guessing this is >>>>>>> due to product store settings, not a code issue. >>>>>>> rev = 545314 >>>>>>> check inventory=Y >>>>>>> reserve inventory=Y >>>>>>> require inventory=N >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All products are finished goods (no digital or virtual) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for any help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Tenerowicz >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>> Office: 303.493.6727 >>>>> Mobile 303.906.6116 >>>>> Fax 303.814.8330 >>>>> >>>>> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >>>>> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >>>>> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Dave Tenerowicz >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Office: 303.493.6727 >> Mobile 303.906.6116 >> Fax 303.814.8330 >> >> Visit us at http://www.salmonllc.com >> For ERP Information: http://www.salmonllc.com/Jsp/vanity/ >> ERP_CRM.jsp?nav=2&NavBarId=ERP_CRMServices >> > >
