[18.0][MIG] rma_repair + rma_repair_lot: Migration to 18.0

[victoralmau]

Migration to 18.0 + separate rma_repair into rma_repair_lot to avoid such a hard dependency (rma_lot).

Please @pilarvargas-tecnativa and @christian-ramos-tecnativa can you review it?

@Tecnativa TT57882

[victoralmau]

I think the rma_lot dependency in

rma/rma_repair/models/rma.py

Line 58 in 18854fc

action["context"]["default_lot_id"] = self.lot_id.id

is too strict (especially because of the dependencies that rma_lot has), so I can think of different possibilities:

• Do not add rma_lot as a dependency of rma_repair and if the lot_id field exists, define its value.
• Do not add rma_lot as a dependency of rma_repair and add an extra module (rma_repair_lot, for example) to add only that case.

What do you think, @pedrobaeza ?

[pedrobaeza]

I would go for an extra module.

[pedrobaeza]

/ocabot migration rma_repair

[victoralmau]

I would go for an extra module.

On second thought, I don't think it's worth the effort to separate that part into a new module just for two lines of code. In the future, the separation will have to be justified, and anyone using this module in previous versions would not be able to use it and would have to add the new one.

In any case, it will be added to the ROADMAP.

[sbejaoui]

can you include these two commits please:

• c424d4f
• f30284a

[christian-ramos-tecnativa]

rma/rma_repair/models/rma.py

Line 58 in 18854fc

action["context"]["default_lot_id"] = self.lot_id.id

IMO if this is the only reason to add rma_lot to the dependencies I would prefer checking if the field exists directly, as @victoralmau said, rma_lot adds many modules from stock-logistics-workflow unnecessary if you don't work with lots.

[victoralmau]

FWP of changes #503 (comment) created at 17.0: #507

Commits added from 17.0 (#507) to this PR

Separated the rma_lot part into a new rma_repair_lot module to avoid that hard dependency

[christian-ramos-tecnativa]

Shouldn't be rma_repair_lot autoinstalable?

[victoralmau]

rma_repair_lot

I'm not sure about auto-install. What do you think, @pedrobaeza ?

[pedrobaeza]

Yeah, it sounds correct.

[christian-ramos-tecnativa]

LGTM