Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Anyone else think it might not be entirely bad to start recording the implementer or allowing the installer to record thier details on a clients installed somewhere
Ideally any error reports could be copied to them as well as the current error lists
Thier details could be displayed on the help menu as well.
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Ben - yes and no.
I was trained never to leave my contact details in any code I wrote (because a) contact details change; and b) someone might call years later asking questions about code I could hardly remember writing). [I entered programming from an academic background where the rule was exactly the opposite - get your name on everything you wrote.]
I suspect most practices would like contacts with their installer funneled through one person and not enable any stall member to contact the installer.
However, it would be nice to be able to add a cc address to Error report emails so that I got cc'ed on error reports. That said, it is my experience that when Tim A receives an error report from a practice that he knows I have dealings with, he tells me.
Regards, Tim G
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Hold up, before we go too far I wasnt talking about a hardcoded value.
the implementer isnt writing code...they are installing and supporting the OpenVPMS system....and as far as recording the author on code...its standard practice to tag a file with a comment like `#author: Your name here`
Tim cant maintain a database of which installer worked where...classic example was yesterday I had an error I knew roughly what the problem was but wanted the error report to review it...so I had it sent ...Tim emailed back the client who automatically freaked out...of course. I had already fixed the problem so it was never an issue.
Anyhow my 2 cents is that a Installer Archetype linked to Practice would be sensible.
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Just an FYI the installer would simply be a entity relationship to a supplier
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Ben - yes after thinking about it, I agree. Before I read your post above, I was thinking that the installer would be a user - but supplier may more sense.
I would be tempted to call the practice entry 'Technical Contact' rather that 'Installer' since this covers a wider range of possible setups.
Hence the code changes needed are:
Regards, Tim G
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Sounds about right!
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Sounds OK. It probably should be a party.organisation* rather than a party.supplier* as the latter would be picked up for orders and deliveries amongst other things.
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Tim - I cannot see any party.organisation* that would be suitable.
I agree with your 'supplier will interferr with orders/deliveries".
Why not security.user ?
Regards, Tim G
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
I was thinking more of a new party.organisationInstaller archetype.
A security.user archetype might also be possible, but practices may not want an installer user active at all times.
Re: Recording the Implementer in an Installation
Tim - sounds good [I was trying to go down the minimal change route - but I take your point about practices wanting to limit access].
Regards, Tim G