Took a while to dig it out but here it is: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/thread/c6ee3ewyo6jpik7k
It's not as in-depth as I'd hoped, but it was purposefully removed all the same. Regards Scott On 3 May 2017 at 17:42, Aditya Sharma <aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > As there is very less information available with the commit I found it > quite difficult to find that discussion. Maybe I just missed out something. > Could you please just help me trace that out to understand it well? > > Thanks & Regards, > Aditya Sharma > Enterprise Software Engineer > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> > > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Aditya Sharma < > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > > > Hi Taher, > > > > Totally agreed to that it should be at entity engine level and default to > > false as that way it will not affect the current implementations and will > > give more scope for its enhancements to cater specific needs. > > > > > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However! > > the > > > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the > database > > > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if > > > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the > validation > > > attributes and how they apply. > > > > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Aditya Sharma > > Enterprise Software Engineer > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Scott Gray < > scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com> > > wrote: > > > >> It was removed purposefully and there was a discussion about it. I'd > >> suggest we all need to go back and look at that discussion before > deciding > >> how to proceed. > >> > >> Regards > >> Scott > >> > >> On 1/05/2017 19:03, "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > I don't have the historical context, so please excuse if I'm off. > >> > > >> > My recommendation is to reintroduce the validation attribute. However! > >> the > >> > validation IMO should happen at the entity engine level, not the > >> database > >> > level (for not null), and also the default value should be false if > >> > omitted. We also need to think of the design in respect of the > >> validation > >> > attributes and how they apply. > >> > > >> > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Aditya Sharma < > >> > aditya.sha...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > While creating an entity I was in ambiguity whether to go for "*id*" > >> or " > >> > > *id-ne*" field type. When I googled it I came across this very > >> enriching > >> > > discussion. > >> > > > >> > > http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/EntityEngine-field-types- > >> > td2251546.html > >> > > > >> > > As stated, an "id-ne" field can only have a *non-empty* value. > >> > > > >> > > I was very curious to know how it is implemented in OFBiz. I found > >> that > >> > > almost all the *fieldtype*.xml* files have *same* *sql-type* and > >> > > *java-type* > >> > > for these 2 field types but I couldn't get any trace of how that > >> > not-empty > >> > > constraint is levied upon "id-ne" fields. > >> > > > >> > > I even looked at table structure for those fields having "id-ne" > field > >> > type > >> > > but there was no "not-null" constraint at even the database level. > >> > > > >> > > When dug into it further I can across this commit where validate > >> elements > >> > > were removed from fieldtype*.xml files. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > http://markmail.org/message/otec62xiwkpjttkq > >> > > > >> > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=959708 > >> > > > >> > > But I can't get why it was removed and when it was removed whether > >> there > >> > > was some implementation that took its place for those validations. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > To further check if it even works I found an OOTB entity having a > >> > > non-primary key "id-ne" field. I found that "*Picklist*" entity has > a > >> > field > >> > > *shipmentMethodTypeId* as "id- ne" type. When we *create a picklist* > >> for > >> > an > >> > > order from Facility Manager, *shipmentMethodTypeId* can be *empty*. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > If my explorations are correct currently there is no difference > >> between > >> > > "id" and "id-ne" at the implementation level and there should be a > >> Jira > >> > for > >> > > it. > >> > > > >> > > If I missed out something, can someone please enlighten me with that > >> and > >> > > help me understanding it well. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks & Regards, > >> > > Aditya Sharma > >> > > Enterprise Software Engineer > >> > > HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd. > >> > > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com/ > >> > > > >> > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditya-sharma-78291810a/> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
