[16.0][ADD] stock_location_orderpoint_change_priority #20
Conversation
|
Hi @mt-software-de, |
|
There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
stale
|
Hi @mt-software-de, |
| replenish_move_manual = self._get_replenishment_move(manual_orderpoint) | ||
|
|
||
| self.assertTrue(replenish_move_manual) | ||
| self.assertEqual(12.0, replenish_move_manual.product_uom_qty) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| self.assertEqual(12.0, replenish_move_manual.product_uom_qty) | |
| self.assertEqual(12.0, replenish_move_manual.product_uom_qty) | |
| self.assertEqual("0", replenish_move_manual.priority) |
| domain = [ | ||
| ("location_dest_id", "child_of", self.location_id.id), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should have a self.ensure_one() check. Otherwise self.location_id.id could fail.
| domain = [ | |
| ("location_dest_id", "child_of", self.location_id.id), | |
| self.ensure_one() | |
| domain = [ | |
| ("location_dest_id", "child_of", self.location_id.id), |
| replenishment_moves_by_location = ( | ||
| orderpoint._find_current_replenishment_moves_for_orderpoint_location( | ||
| products=products | ||
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| for ( | ||
| __location, | ||
| replenishment_moves, | ||
| ) in replenishment_moves_by_location.items(): | ||
| replenishment_moves_to_update |= replenishment_moves | ||
|
|
||
| if replenishment_moves_to_update: | ||
| replenishment_moves_to_update.write( | ||
| { | ||
| "priority": orderpoint.priority, | ||
| } | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is _find_current_replenishment_moves_for_orderpoint_location returning the moves grouped by location, when the location is never used? By not grouping it it would ease the code.
| replenishment_moves_by_location = ( | |
| orderpoint._find_current_replenishment_moves_for_orderpoint_location( | |
| products=products | |
| ) | |
| ) | |
| for ( | |
| __location, | |
| replenishment_moves, | |
| ) in replenishment_moves_by_location.items(): | |
| replenishment_moves_to_update |= replenishment_moves | |
| if replenishment_moves_to_update: | |
| replenishment_moves_to_update.write( | |
| { | |
| "priority": orderpoint.priority, | |
| } | |
| ) | |
| replenishment_moves = ( | |
| orderpoint._find_current_replenishment_moves_for_orderpoint_location( | |
| products=products | |
| ) | |
| ) | |
| if replenishment_moves: | |
| replenishment_moves.write( | |
| { | |
| "priority": orderpoint.priority, | |
| } | |
| ) |
| We consider the orderpoint has been triggered, so we need | ||
| """ | ||
| replenishment_moves_to_update = self.env["stock.move"].browse() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This shouldn't be defined outside the loop. Otherwise i could write on moves which not belong to the orderpoint.
nicolas-delbovier-acsone
force-pushed
the
16.0-imp-stock-location-orderpoint-priority-dro
branch
from
a9ab73e to
55f5eca
Compare
The unit test `test_stock_location_orderpoint_priority_change` was failing in `stock_location_orderpoint` because the associated logic was moved to `stock_location_orderpoint_change_priority`. This commit removes the now-obsolete test from `stock_location_orderpoint` as an identical test already exists and passes within the `stock_location_orderpoint_change_priority` module, where the relevant priority change logic now resides.
|
@mt-software-de Thanks for the review. I will come back later on this. I was jyst fixing this branch as I need it for our client. |
github-actions
bot
removed
the
stale
…e in replenishment logic. This commit delays the priority update to occur *after* moves have been merged. This ensures that the function merging replenishment moves still has access to the "not yet updated" priorities preventing information loss.
Some test was failing because the code saying "day +1" fails if we are the last day of a month.
|
@rousseldenis @nicolas-delbovier-acsone Can we close this one in favour of #55. |
That's fine with me. |
5 participants
No description provided.