|View Issue Details|
|Type||Category||Severity||Reproducibility||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|feature request||[Openbravo ERP] 07. Sales management||major||always||2009-05-11 09:55||2011-02-04 09:11|
|Priority||normal||Resolution||open||Fixed in Version|
|Status||feedback||Fix in branch||Fixed in SCM revision|
|OS||Linux 32 bit||Database||PostgreSQL||Java version||1.6.0_11|
|OS Version||rPath Linux||Database version||8.3.5||Ant version||1.7.1|
|Product Version||SCM revision|
|Review Assigned To|
|Regression introduced in release|
|Regression introduced by commit|
|Triggers an Emergency Pack||No|
0008981: Find all partners when you use the selector
|Description||Show all the partners avialable in the selector|
|Steps To Reproduce||- Go to Sales Management || Transactions || Sales Order || Header |
- Use the Bussines Partner icon in order to search partners
- We want to have all partners available independently they have or not an adress
|Tags||No tags attached.|
The described intended behavior for the selector should already be the current behavior.
Tested in 2.50 beta (demo): Create a new business partner (just the main entry without address/location) goto to sales order and open the selector. The newly created entry is displayed and selectable.
However it is not usable as a sales order without an Invoice Adress is not possible, but that is independent of the selector.
I would reject this feature request as it is reported. There has no sense to do that since the address is mandatory in all transactional windows.
Another thing would be to have two different selectors for products, business partners.
1. A business, product selector for transactional windows: Leave them as they are
2. A business, product selector for reports: Here have or not have an address it doesn't matter.
So that's why we should have different approaches for reports and transactional windows
|The current business partner selector does not care about the address (in 2.50beta at least). A partner without an address is shown. So it does already implement the option 2 now. Please correct me if i am wrong on this...|
Can you please provide a business justification for this feature request?
What is the business objective that the user wants to achieve? As you can see from the debate in the above notes, we are not clear on the rationale for this request so we want to make sure we fully understand what the user is trying to do and why before making any judgement call on the validity of the request.
the partner agrees with psarobe.
it would be to have two selectors: one to the transactional windows and other to the reports
|2009-05-11 09:55||networkb||New Issue|
|2009-05-11 09:55||networkb||Assigned To||=> rafaroda|
|2009-05-11 09:55||networkb||Regression testing||=> No|
|2009-05-11 09:58||rafaroda||Note Added: 0016228|
|2009-05-11 09:58||rafaroda||Status||new => feedback|
|2009-05-11 10:00||rafaroda||Assigned To||rafaroda => pjuvara|
|2009-05-11 10:00||rafaroda||Status||feedback => new|
|2009-05-11 10:00||rafaroda||Note Deleted: 0016228|
|2009-05-11 10:28||shuehner||Note Added: 0016231|
|2009-05-11 10:32||psarobe||Note Added: 0016232|
|2009-05-11 10:46||shuehner||Note Added: 0016237|
|2009-05-11 19:45||pjuvara||Note Added: 0016281|
|2009-05-11 19:45||pjuvara||Status||new => feedback|
|2009-10-01 14:02||networkb||Note Added: 0020626|
|2011-02-04 09:11||jpabloae||Assigned To||pjuvara => rmorley|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2009 MantisBT Group|