That would be a good idea. I didn't remove it because I don't have time
to do an impact analysis.
-Adrian
On 2/24/2013 9:00 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Then should we not remove it?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: <
[hidden email]>
>> Author: adrianc
>> Date: Sun Feb 24 00:29:25 2013
>> New Revision: 1449430
>>
>> URL:
http://svn.apache.org/r1449430>> Log:
>> FIXME comment. No functional change.
>>
>> Modified:
>> ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>>
>> Modified: ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml
>> URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml?rev=1449430&r1=1449429&r2=1449430&view=diff>> ==============================================================================
>> --- ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml (original)
>> +++ ofbiz/trunk/applications/party/entitydef/entitymodel.xml Sun Feb 24 00:29:25 2013
>> @@ -2506,6 +2506,8 @@ under the License.
>> <view-link entity-alias="PTY" rel-entity-alias="PTYGRP" rel-optional="true">
>> <key-map field-name="partyId"/>
>> </view-link>
>> + <!-- FIXME: This relationship does not make sense. There is no one-to-one relationship from PARTY to PARTY STATUS,
>> + so this relation will cause duplicate values for parties with multiple statuses. -->
>> <view-link entity-alias="PTY" rel-entity-alias="PS" rel-optional="true">
>> <key-map field-name="partyId"/>
>> </view-link>
>>
>>
Locked
