Discussions
Stay up-to-date with the latest news from NetSuite. You’ll be in the know about how to connect with peers and take your business to new heights at our virtual, in-person, on demand events, and much more.
New AI Community Guidelines. Please review and follow them to ensure AI use stays safe, accurate, and compliant.
Keep an eye out for upcoming NetSuite events, including meetups, workshops, and webinars. These sessions are a great way to connect with peers, learn from experts, and stay current on the latest NetSuite updates and best practices. Registration links are provided in each event.
Save $300 - limited to first 1,000 registrants
Join the NetSuite community to innovate, connect, and discover what’s next.
SuiteWorld brings thousands of innovators, builders, and leaders together to learn, connect, and shape what’s next. This October, explore how to build a stronger foundation for growth through inspiring keynotes, major product reveals, hands-on sessions, and unforgettable moments—all in one place for our biggest event of the year. Register now
Join the NetSuite community to innovate, connect, and discover what’s next.
SuiteWorld brings thousands of innovators, builders, and leaders together to learn, connect, and shape what’s next. This October, explore how to build a stronger foundation for growth through inspiring keynotes, major product reveals, hands-on sessions, and unforgettable moments—all in one place for our biggest event of the year. Register now
Proposal: abstract super-types
If you are familiar with our WS schema, you know that the record types are broken down quite granularly, and that often many groups of record types are very similar. By "groups" I mean:
* items (InventoryItem, NonInventoryItem, SerializedAssemblyItem, SerializedInventoryItem...)
* entities (Employee, Customer, Contact, Vendor, Partner...)
* events (Task, CalendarEvent...)
Someone on the user group once mentioned they would really appreciate an "Item" type to be defined, which would contain all of the common item fields.
Where currently the type hierarchy is:
Record + InventoryItem + NonInventoryItem + ... + Customer + Partner + ...
it would become:
Record + Item | + InventoryItem | + NonInventoryItem | + ... | + Entity | + Customer | + Partner | + ... |
Pro: could offer the WS users desired flexibility in his or her code. from an API perspective, eliminating the repititon of common fields would clarify what it is that differentiates similar record types from one another.
0