I'm working on a project for a customer, and one of the requirements is that Users should be allow to assign to each Product (in their case, a Node) a Country or a Region, where the Region is simply a group of Countries, not necessarily in the same area.
I've seen there are many different ways to manage a list of Countries, often suggesting to use Taxonomy for them, but I can't figure out how could I allow users to create these "Regions". To make things complicated, customer wants to have a simple interface, where only one field is present on the form. In this field, Users must be able to choose either a Country or a Region.
Perhaps I could implement everything using Nodes, i.e.:
- Country Nodes
- Region Nodes, with a multiple-valued Node Reference to Country Nodes
But I wonder if that would not be too heavy...
I hope the issue is clear, if not feel free to ask and I'll try to explain it better. Thanks for all suggestions.
I ended up creating my own tables and code to handle the whole thing, as I couldn't find any better solution. I used tables from IP2Country module as a source for Country Codes.
Related
In my company (train company) there is a sort of battle going on over two viewpoints on something. Before going to deep into the problem I'm first going to explain the different domains we have in our landscape now.
Product: All product master data and their characteristics.
Think their name, their possible list of choices...
Location: All location master data that can be chosen, like stations, stops, etc.
Quote: To get a price for a specific choice of a product with their attributes.
Order: The order domain where you can make a positive order but also a negative one for reimbursements.
Ticket: This is essentially what you get from paying the order. Its the product but in the state that its at, when gotten by the customer.
The problem
Viewpoint PURPLE (I don't want to create bias)
When an order is transformed into all "tickets", we convert the order details, like price, into the ticket model. In order to make Order something we can throw away. Order is seen as something transient. Kind of like the bag you have in a supermarket. Its the goods inside the bag that matter. Not the bag itself.
When a reimburse flow would start. You do not need to go to the order. You would have everything in the Ticket domain. So this means data from order will be duplicated to Ticket.
But not all, only the things that are relevant. Like price for example.
Viewpoint YELLOW (I don't want to create bias)
You do the same as above but you do not store the price in Ticket domain. The ticket domain only consist of details that are relevant for the "ticket" to work. Price is not allowed in there cause its a thing of the order. When a reimburse flow would start, its allowed to go fetch those details from the order. Making order not something you can throw away as its having crucial data inside of it.
The benefit here is that Order is not "polluting" the Ticket with unnecessary data. But this is debatable. The example of the price is a good example.
I wish to know your ideas about these two viewpoints.
There is no "Don't repeat yourself" when it comes to the business domain. The only thing that dictates the business domain is the business requirements. If the requirements state that the ticket should work independent of the order changes, then you have to duplicate things.
But in this case, the requirements are ambiguous. There is no correct design using the currently specified requirements. Building code based on assumptions is the #1 way of getting bad code, since you most likely will have to do a redesign down the road.
You need to go back to the product owner and ask him about the difference between the Order and the Ticket.
For instance:
What should happen to the ticket if the order is deleted?
What happens to the order and/or ticket if the product price changes?
What happens to a ticket if the order is reimbursed?
Go back, get better requirements and then start to design the application.
Disclaimer: Please forgive me if this is a silly thing to ask but I work in a small company and our sharepoint build was outsourced and not done very well, and I'm the closest thing we have to an admin, and I'm just trying to understand what is/isn't possible when it comes to controlling access to our sharepoint content so we can have a clear idea of what we want to do when the time comes to rebuild.
So, my question: we have a set of documents that are stored in a series of libraries. We have several different types of users, who are bound by different levels of contract/NDA.
Some users need access to all our documentation, some need access to most of our documentation and some need access to only some of it.
At the moment, we have them divided into 3 separate user groups, who each have access to only their own library. and we populate each with all of the documents that each group needs access to, which means that a large sub-set of the documents are duplicated across multiple libraries.
EG: user group 1 has access to folder 1 only. User group 2 has access to folder 2 only, etc etc.
This is problematic as we end up with version control issues as people may update a doc in one location and forget that it is also in the one or more of the others.
What I would like is to find a way to maintain only 1 set of documents and be able to control who has access to it at the document level.
Now, I can see how it could be managed by splitting the documents up into separate folders by access level, and it would look something like below:
However, this just doesn't make any sense in terms of our actual content; it's not that user group 1 needs all the legal content and user group 2 needs all the commercial content, and UG3 needs technical. It's that UG1 needs all the legal, commercial and technical content, UG2 needs most of the above, and UG3 is only allowed access to a smaller amount of high level documentation on each.
In real life, it looks something more like this:
So ideally, I'd like a solution for permissions that looks something like this:
In my head, this involves creating permission levels and applying them to the individual documents, for eg: Document #123 can be access by permission level Y, which means user groups 1 & 2 can access it, but not user group 3.
Is this even something that is possible to do? Does it make sense? If I'm way off base, I'd love any suggestions on how else we could/should manage this.
NB: I'm not asking for anyone to tell me the detail of how to achieve this, as that's well beyond my capability and we'd definitely be outsourcing the doing, I'm more just looking to understand what it is we should be getting done when we do get it done, so we don't end up with a substandard solution again.
Huge thanks in advance!
L
Based on your description, I understand that you want to set unique permissions for documents. And you don’t want to put a document in different places to cause a version error.
In my opinion, you first divide users into three separated user groups. Then set unique permissions for individual documents. For example, document1 can be accessed by group1, document2 can be accessed by group1 and group2, etc. Using folders to classify documents cannot meet your requirement.
Update:
1.Select the file -> Manage access -> Advanced.
2.Stop Inheriting Permissions -> Remove permissions of users you do not want, grant permissions for users you want.
For my internship, I need to implement a blockchain based solution to manage a drug supply chain. The management of this supply chain implies to track-and-trace (geolocate) a drug on the chain, but also to monitor the storage temperature to see if the cold chain is respected. For that I created a mock-up of the POC my Dapps (https://balsamiq.cloud/sum5oq5/p8lsped)and also I wanted to prepare myself by doing a UML and a use cases. However, I didn't find a lot of information about blockchain's UML and use cases besides two literatures which were quite different, so I don't know if what I did was correct or not...
The users of my Dapps will be the following ones:
The stakeholders (Manufacturers, Distributors and Retailers) which will use the Dapps to place orders and also monitor them. They also can search in the historic a specific order. Finally, trough IOT sensors they update the conditions of the order (temperature & location).
The administrator which roles is to update the Dapps and its rules. But also to add or delete user while also defining the rights that they have on the blockchain (I intend to use a permisionned blockchain). Finally, they are also here to help in case of technical problem.
The Dapps that I'm thinking about works in the following:
A user, the customer, can place an order (a list of products) to a
certain seller and choose the final destination of the order.
The order is then put together before being shipped or stocked in the
depots of one of the stakeholders (distributor or retailer) with a
description of the stocking and/or shipping condition of the product
(for example the product must be stocked or transported in a room
with a temperature of less than 5°C). During the shipping and
storing, an IOT device will feed the drops with the temperature and
geolocation of the product by updating the data each 5-10mn.
Obviously they will be a function that allows all the users to see
the history of the order passed and search inside a specific order.
In case where the temperature doesn't respect the temperature
recommended, then the smart-contract send an alert. The same if the
collocation of the product is "weird" like being in some European
countries and not in an Asian country, an alert will be sent again by
the smart-contractual. Finally, in the case where the product is sent
to the asked location by the customer, then the money for the order
will be paid to the seller.
So based on what I explained, I came here in hope that someone tell me if the use cases and UML that I did were correct or not.
I thank in advance anybody who'll take the time to help me.
I want to sanity check myself on a view projection, in regards to if an intermediary concept can purely exist in the read model while providing a bridge between commands.
Let me use a contrived example to explain.
We place an order which raises an OrderPlaced event. The workflow then involves generating a picking slip, which is used to prepare a shipment.
A picking slip can be generated from an order (or group of orders) without any additional information being supplied from any external source or user. Is it acceptable then that the picking slip can be represented purely as a read model?
So:
PlaceOrderCommand -> OrderPlacedEvent
OrderPlacedEvent -> PickingSlipView
The warehouse manager can then view a picking slip, select the lines they would like to ship, and then perform a PrepareShipment command. A ShipmentPrepared event will then update the original order, and remove the relevant lines from the PickingSlipView.
I know it's a toy example, but I have a conceptually similar use case where a colleague believes the PickingSlip should be a domain entity/aggregate in its own right, as it's conceptually different to order. So you have PlaceOrder, GeneratePickingSlip, and PrepareShipment commands.
The GeneratePickingSlip command however simply takes an order number (identifier), transforms the order data into a picking slip entity, and persists the entity. You can't modify or remove a picking slip or perform any action on it, apart from using it to prepare a shipment.
This feels like introducing unnecessary overhead on the write model, for what is ultimately just a transformation of existing information to enable another command.
So (and without delving deeply into the problem space of warehouses and shipping)...
Is what I'm proposing a legitimate use case for a read model?
Acting as an intermediary between two commands, via transformation of some data into a different view. Or, as my colleague proposes, should every concept be represented in the write model in all cases?
I feel my approach is simpler, and avoiding unneeded complexity, but I'm new to CQRS and so perhaps missing something.
Edit - Alternative Example
Providing another example to explore:
We have a book of record for categories, where each record is information about products and their location. The book of record is populated by an external system, and contains SKU numbers, mapped to available locations:
Book of Record (Electronics)
SKU# Location1 Location2 Location3 ... Location 10
XXXX Introduce Remove Introduce ... N/A
YYYY N/A Introduce Introduce ... Remove
Each book of record is an entity, and each line is a value object.
The book of record is used to generate different Tasks (which are grouped in a TaskPlan to be assigned to a person). The plan may only cover a subset of locations.
There are different types of Tasks: One TaskPlan is for the individual who is on a location to add or remove stock from shelves. Call this an AllocateStock task. Another type of Task exists for a regional supervisor managing multiple locations, to check that shelving is properly following store guidelines, say CheckDisplay task. For allocating stock, we are interested in both introduced and removed SKUs. For checking the displays, we're only interested in newly Introduced SKUs, etc.
We are exploring two options:
Option 1
The person creating the tasks has a View (read model) that allows them to select Book of Records. Say they select Electronics and Fashion. They then select one or more locations. They could then submit a command like:
GenerateCheckDisplayTasks(TaskPlanId, List<BookOfRecordId>, List<Locations>)
The commands would then orchestrate going through the records, filtering out locations we don't need, processing only the 'Introduced' items, and creating the corresponding CheckDisplayTasks for each SKU in the TaskPlan.
Option 2
The other option is to shift the filtering to the read model before generating the tasks.
When a book of record is added a view model for each type of task is maintained. The data might be transposed, and would only include relevant info. ie. the CheckDisplayScopeView might project the book of record to:
Category SKU Location
Electronics (BookOfRecordId) XXXX Location1
Electronics (BookOfRecordId) XXXX Location3
Electronics (BookOfRecordId) YYYY Location2
Electronics (BookOfRecordId) YYYY Location3
Fashion (BookOfRecordId) ... ... etc
When generating tasks, the view enables the user to select the category and locations they want to generate the tasks for. Perhaps they select the Electronics category and Location 1 and 3.
The command is now:
GenerateCheckDisplayTasks(TaskPlanId, List<BookOfRecordId, SKU, Location>)
Where the command now no longer is responsible for the logic needed to filter out the locations, the Removed and N/A items, etc.
So the command for the first option just submits the ID of the entity that is being converted to tasks, along with the filter options, and does all the work internally, likely utilizing domain services.
The second option offloads the filtering aspect to the view model, and now the command submits values that will generate the tasks.
Note: In terms of the guidance that Aggregates shouldn't appear out of thin air, the Task Plan aggregate will create the Tasks.
I'm trying to determine if option 2 is pushing too much responsibility onto the read model, or whether this filtering behavior is more applicable there.
Sorry, I attempted to use the PickingSlip example as I thought it would be a more recognizable problem space, but realize now that there are connotations that go along with the concept that may have muddied the waters.
The answer to your question, in my opinion, very much depends on how you design your domain, not how you implement CQRS. The way you present it, it seems that all these operations and aggregates are in the same Bounded Context but at first glance, I would think that there are 3 (naming is difficult!):
Order Management or Sales, where orders are placed
Warehouse Operations, where goods are packaged to be shipped
Shipments, where packages are put in trucks and leave
When an Order is Placed in Order Management, Warehouse reacts and starts the Packaging workflow. At this point, Warehouse should have all the data required to perform its logic, without needing the Order anymore.
The warehouse manager can then view a picking slip, select the lines they would like to ship, and then perform a PrepareShipment command.
To me, this clearly indicates the need for an aggregate that will ensure the invariants are respected. You cannot select items not present in the picking slip, you cannot select more items than the quantities specified, you cannot select items that have already been packaged in a previous package and so on.
A ShipmentPrepared event will then update the original order, and remove the relevant lines from the PickingSlipView.
I don't understand why you would modify the original order. Also, removing lines from a view is not a safe operation per se. You want to guarantee that concurrency doesn't cause a single item to be placed in multiple packages, for example. You guarantee that using an aggregate that contains all the items, generates the packaging instructions, and marks the items of each package safely and transactionally.
Acting as an intermediary between two commands
Aggregates execute the commands, they are not in between.
Viewing it from another angle, an indication that you need that aggregate is that the PrepareShippingCommand needs to create an aggregate (Shipping), and according to Udi Dahan, you should not create aggregate roots (out of thin air). Instead, other aggregate roots create them. So, it seems fair to say that there needs to be some aggregate, which ensures that the policies to create shippings are applied.
As a final note, domain design is difficult and you need to know the domain very well, so it is very likely that my proposed solution is not correct, but I hope the considerations I made on each step are helpful to you to come up with the right solution.
UPDATE after question update
I read a couple of times the updated question and updated several times my answer, but ended up every time with answers very specific to your example again and I'm most likely missing a lot of details to actually be helpful (I'd be happy to discuss it on another channel though). Therefore, I want to go back to the first sentence of your question to add an important comment that I missed:
an intermediary concept can purely exist in the read model, while providing a bridge between commands.
In my opinion, read models are disposable. They are not a single source of truth. They are a representation of the data to easily fulfil the current query needs. When these query needs change, old read models are deleted and new ones are created based on the data from the write models.
So, only based on this, I would recommend to not prepare a read model to facilitate your commands operations.
I think that your solution is here:
When a book of record is added a view model for each type of task is maintained. The data might be transposed, and would only include relevant info.
If I understand it correctly, what you should do here is not create view model, but create an Aggregate (or multiple). Then this aggregate can receive the commands, apply the business rules and mutate the state. So, instead of having a domain service reading data from "clever" read models and putting it all together, you have an aggregate which encapsulates the data it needs and the business logic.
I hope it makes sense. It's a broad topic and we could talk about it for hours probably.
I am trying to create a N:1 relationship off another entity to Order Product. It is not an option in the pick list. I then tried to go to Order Product and create a 1:N relationship and it also does not allow it.
I am sure this is by design from Microsoft, but is there a way to achive this? I perfer not to to a 1:N or N:N as a work around since it will create grids on the form (and that does not make much sense from a UI perspective when there will only be one record).
Thank for the help!!!!
I am going to add a single line of text field and format it as a url. Then link it to the related entity by dynamically populating a URL to the entity. It is a work around but of all the possible scenarios its the best for my situation
We faced the same problem during building a solution for a client. It was a heavy restriction so in the end we just created our own order product entity and linked it via a one to many to order.
This gave us complete control over it and could add relationships as we wish.
This came at a cost unfortunately as you lose the auto calculation on order for example. This wasn't an issue however as we didn't need it or any of the price list functionality.
If this is an option for you I'd recommend doing it this way.
I think that everybody had to face the same problem in his CRM life.
For CRM, the entities, salesorderproduct... are entities used only to enumerate the products of the entity related in its name, and you can not do almost nothing, that's another problem with a workaround, that I'll try to explain, just to see if this could be the solution to creating relations with them, but I don't think so.
The problem is that you can not use the assign functionality as in other relations to copy data from one entityproduct to the lower-level entityproduct when you create custom fields, and you want to copy throught the entire workflow of sales section. In this case, there is no option to enter the "Assign" window (I use Assign because I have always worked in Spanish) and create the field mappings between them.
This could be done by searching the GUID of the "Assign" window, and copyign into any of the URLs of the "Assign" window, the window showed up, and you could do your custom mappings.
I hope this could help, although this question is too old, so I hope other that arrive here, could see more opinions :)
See you