ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BJ Freeman <bjf...@free-man.net>
Subject Re: Help regarding migration services
Date Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:23:59 GMT
I respect your efforts, only sad I will not be something I can use, 
since my version follows the Data Model books, closer than ofbiz does.


Swapnil Sawant sent the following on 7/6/2010 4:11 AM:


=========================
BJ Freeman  <http://bjfreeman.elance.com>
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation  <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com  <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man

> Hi BJ,
>
> In ofbiz leave functionality, currently there is no such concept of 'defined rules for
how the leave was calculated for a given period'. Hence, below solution doesn't seem to be
feasible from implementation perspective.
>
> Hence, we would upload patch for review purpose and would work on 'finding feasible solution
for migration services' parallely.
>
>
>
> Thanks&  Regards,
> Swapnil Sawant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:47 PM
> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Help regarding migration services
>
> here is how the Agreement model should be setup
> Agreements is to specify when leaves should happen like every 6 months,
> or so many hours leave for so many hours worked.
>
> In migration, if you want a audit trail, you will need to reconstruct
> the rules of how the leave was calculated for a given period.
> if the rules are the same as current then there is no reconstruction
> necessary.
>
> the model for figuring leave
>
> A service calculates and updates partybenifits.availabletime, for
> partybenfits.from to partybenfits.thru, of the partybenfits.benefittype
> of leave, based on the Agreement. I suggest a nightly run service to do
> this.
>
> As the partybenfits.benefittype of leave is used for partybenfits.from
> to partybenfits.thru the partybenfits.availabletime field is decremented
> till zero or the partybenfits.thru is reached.
>
>
> if the partybenfits.thru date is past the current date, then what is
> left in the available time is no longer usable. if the
> partybenfits.Fromdate is a date in the future it can not be used in
> calculating current partybenfits.benefittype of leave for the party.
>
> Old leave is specified with the partybenfits.availabletime, if not all
> used, with  partybenfits.from to partybenfits.thru  as to when it was
> available.
> using this model will not cause a conflict.
>
> the migration service will only run once.
>
> I have simplified the explantion for clarity.
> in acutual use you will find the partyID.roletype employee
> partiesrelationship.roletype employment related to agreement(s) and
> partybenefits. these would be entityviews.
>
> There is normally only one agreement,with many agreementItems. There are
> many partybenefits records per partyID.roletype employee with a
> partyrelatiohship.type of employement.
>
> Hope that helps
>
>
> Swapnil Sawant sent the following on 7/1/2010 8:59 PM:
>
>
> =========================
> BJ Freeman
> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation<http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> Linkedin
> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>
>> Hi BJ,
>>
>> I have following concerns in migration service you have mentioned below :
>>
>>           - In old data, we may see that different employees had taken different
number of leaves for different number of                   times. Hence, its not feasible
to decide upon some fixed count(leave balance) which would go into agreement data        which
migration service would prepare.
>>
>>           For example,
>>
>>             agreement data like total number of leaves is difficult  to be put using
migration service for old leave                        applications because while writing
migration services we may not know as to how to adjust all older leave               applications
into fixed set of agreements(by default 2 i.re. for permanent and contractual) i.e what would
             be the exact value for 'total number of leaves' considering 'how many times an
employee might have taken leaves         in past'
>>
>> Problem which I see over here is :
>>
>>             After new leave functionality comes into picture, our leave apps would
be aligned as per leave balance. But, older leave apps would have different 'no. of leaves
and available time per employee' .
>>
>>
>> Thanks&   regards,
>>
>> Swapnil Sawant
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BJ Freeman [mailto:bjfree@free-man.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:21 PM
>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Help regarding migration services
>>
>> the Agreement has items that define how, when, and the amount things happen.
>> so putting the rules in the agreements for past leaves in the only
>> migration needed.
>>
>> The partybenifits is where you put data.
>> this would show past leaves with their from and thru dates, as well as
>> benefit type, and  available time.
>> if the Partyrelatinoship is used between company and employee this makes
>> flow easier. since benefits only happen after the relationship is a
>> employment type.
>>
>> the leave balance check should check the benifits types with no thru
>> dates and the avialible time for each benifit type.
>>
>>
>> =========================
>> BJ Freeman
>> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation<http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
>> Specialtymarket.com<http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>
>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>
>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>> Linkedin
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>>
>>
>> Swapnil Sawant sent the following on 7/1/2010 3:19 AM:
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> My implementation is about leave management. Some part of it's functionality
is as follows :
>>>
>>>            - Appropriate leave balance data would be there for two basic types
of agreements (permanent and contractual)
>>>            - Agreements would be applied to employee/s and thereby he/she would
get some leave balance
>>>            - Whenever an employee creates new leave application, leave balance
would be checked.
>>>            - Depending on leave balance, leave application may or may not be
created
>>>
>>> In short, I have implemented 'leave balance check' functionality.
>>>
>>>            Now, lets consider old data. We may find that different employees
had applied for different number of leaves in total(e.g. empl1 had applied for 40,empl2 had
applied for 50 leaves till now ) . So when newly added functionality would be applied to 'such
old data' conflicts will be seen in data (as you can not keep on creating new agreements specific
to employee to cop-up with no of leaves created by him/her)
>>>
>>>            Please suggest how to tackle this situation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks&    regards,
>>>
>>> Swapnil Sawant
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 2:07 PM
>>> To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Help regarding migration services
>>>
>>> Quick answer: this may help (examples)
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBTECH/Revisions+Requiring+Data+Migration
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> Swapnil Sawant wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have following queries while writing migration service/s :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.       I have created two new rows in an existing entity. In this case,
only exporting data to XML should be done ?
>>>>
>>>> 2.       Functionality which I have implemented won't work with old data.
In that case, how migration process should be carried
>>>> out ?
>>>>
>>>> For example :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -          In my implementation, I am tracking leave applications against
leave balance (i.e. before creating a leave application
>>>> ,his/her current balance would be checked)
>>>>
>>>> -          When an already approved leave is rejected, corresponding 'no
of leaves'(calculated using a service) gets credited
>>>> back to his/her balance
>>>>
>>>> -          But,as per old data, there wont be any (stored) value for 'no
of leaves'.
>>>>
>>>> -          If at all I use  above service (for calculating no of leaves from
existing dates),it will give rise to inconsistency
>>>> of data because 'calculated no of leaves' would not be calculated against
some 'leave balance'
>>>>
>>>> Please guide me in this context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks&    Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Swapnil Sawant
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended
recipient (s) If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, please do not use or disseminate the information, notify the sender
and delete it from your system.
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended
recipient (s) If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disseminate the
information, notify the sender and delete it from your system.
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended recipient
(s) If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disseminate the information,
notify the sender and delete it from your system.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This Email may contain confidential or privileged information for the intended recipient
(s) If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disseminate the information,
notify the sender and delete it from your system.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>

Mime
View raw message