Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Order placement menu: Adapt units/amounts in footer to new unit system #1097

Open
twothreenine opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1073
Open

Order placement menu: Adapt units/amounts in footer to new unit system #1097

twothreenine opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1073
Assignees

Comments

@twothreenine
Copy link
Contributor

twothreenine commented Apr 16, 2024

This is outdated and confusing:
grafik

Suggestion: (omit tolerance for case potatoes, as there's no tolerance input anyway):
grafik


In case of detergent -- old:
grafik

Suggestion:
grafik


In case of beer:

grafik


So, my suggestion is:

  1. Rename "Filled units" ("Volle Gebinde") to "Order result" ("Bestellergebnis") - it's the amount that will be ordered from the supplier (in supplier order unit) if the minimum order quantity is reached, so it's not only about filling units anymore.
    (this is the most fitting, short label I could think of -- perhaps you know a better one?)
  2. Append the supplier order unit to the order result amount
  3. Omit "Units: ..." on the left, since it's included in order result
  4. Rename "Total units" ("Gesamt-Einheiten") to "Total amount" ("Gesamtmenge"), so that it is consistent with the column titles.
    Omit "Total tolerance" if tolerance input is omitted anyway for the respective article

    Even simpler: Total order: <amount> + <tolerance> <(x) group order unit>
    (mathematically incorrect with the + and x, but shorter and better readable IMO)
    I'd also put Total order above Order result, as it is the more logical way.
  5. btw, additionally: Omit missing amount in the table ("0") in case tolerance input is omitted anyway, so that there are less confusing numbers on the screen
@lentschi
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that this is currently a bit confusing and might require a redesign, but I think we could live with the current fields in a first version and move this to the "Post-merge" milestone. (Then we might be able to make such a redesign with more people involved.)

@twothreenine twothreenine self-assigned this Apr 27, 2024
@lentschi lentschi transferred this issue from foodcoops/foodsoft_hackathon Feb 9, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants