[16.0][ADD] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity by rousseldenis · Pull Request #1394 · OCA/stock-logistics-workflow

rousseldenis · 2023-10-06T07:47:16Z

Depends on:

[16.0][MIG] - stock_picking_progress #1330

lmignon · 2023-12-20T16:35:01Z

depends on #1330

rousseldenis · 2024-02-09T11:14:31Z

What this module needs is to make the user access inventory easily through the Loss picking menu

github-actions · 2024-08-04T12:35:47Z

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.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

github-actions · 2025-01-12T12:40:18Z

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.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

lmignon · 2025-08-19T14:45:55Z

ping @rousseldenis This one is used in our project and in production for years...

github-actions · 2025-12-28T12:54:17Z

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.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

…on inventory When an inventory is validated, we need to cancel any remaining pending moves created to make the quantity no more available in case of loss declaration.

…ancel the loss move When user want to apply inventory, be less restrictive on inventory_mode check as the values should have been checked in stock module.

Update the warehouse loss sequence creation to use the specific code defined in the loss picking type. If no code is defined, it falls back to the default "LOSS" string.

…izards + clean code - Relocate the loss declaration code from external wizard to the stock.move.line model - Remove useless grouping logic (the code is always called on a single line through UI) - Rename variables in for better clarity - Remove code that was never reached in unit tests and that seemed dead - Clean and improve unit tests (add quants verifications)

…ines to same loss picking

… do not get merged

…shold Introduce a 'Loss Auto-Clear Threshold' setting on the warehouse. When a product/location combination (quant) reaches this number of consecutive loss declarations, the system automatically reserves the remaining quantity. This prevents redundant manual declarations for "ghost" stock and improves warehouse efficiency by stopping future workers from attempting to pick non-existent products.

…a loss on loss pickings

…e lines to count number of loss declaration on loss picking Each loss declaration creates a single move on the loss picking but it is not sure that every move has a single move line

…s confirmed and linked to a move line when using `loss_auto_clear_threshold=1`

…at auto-clearing parent location also clears child location

lmignon

@nicolas-delbovier-acsone Thank you for the improvements. However, I do have some concerns about the usability of the approach. See my comment.

lmignon · 2026-03-23T13:01:10Z

+        new_loss_move_vals = {
+            "name": self.product_id.display_name,
+            "product_id": self.product_id.id,
+            "product_uom_qty": unprocessed_qty,  # This is the "demand"
+            "product_uom": self.product_uom_id.id,
+            "location_id": self.location_id.id,
+            "location_dest_id": loss_pick_type.default_location_dest_id.id,
+            "lot_ids": [Command.set(self.lot_id.ids)] if self.lot_id else False,
+        }
+


@nicolas-delbovier-acsone For flexibility and readability this code should be put into a _prepare_loss_move_vals(self, qty) method `

lmignon · 2026-03-23T13:04:32Z

+        search_domain = [
+            ("reserved_uom_qty", ">", 0.0),
+            ("product_id", "=", self.product_id.id),
+            ("location_id", "=", self.location_id.id),
+            ("lot_id", "=", self.lot_id.id),
+            ("package_id", "=", self.package_id.id),
+            ("owner_id", "=", self.owner_id.id),
+            ("state", "not in", ("done", "cancel")),
+            ("picking_type_id", "=", loss_pick_type.id),
+            (
+                "location_dest_id",
+                "=",
+                loss_pick_type.default_location_dest_id.id,
+            ),
+        ]
+        similar_loss_lines = self.env["stock.move.line"].search(search_domain)


IMO This code should also be put into a dedicated method and the domain also provided by a specific method

lmignon · 2026-03-23T13:21:14Z

+                    }
+                )
+                new_loss_move._action_confirm(merge=False)
+


I can see a problem with this approach. In the end, if the product hasn’t been found, we’re left with n identical moves plus a final move with the remaining quantities in the location. For the operator, who only sees the transactions, this will pose a problem. In my view, it would be preferable to merge the moves and retain the number of loss declarations already made for the same product/batch in the same location.

lmignon · 2026-03-23T13:22:53Z

+                    "picking_type_id": loss_pick_type.id,
+                    "location_id": self.location_id.id,
+                    "location_dest_id": loss_pick_type.default_location_dest_id.id,


IMO the information required to create the picking should be provided by a prepare method _prepare_loss_picking_vals ....

Refactor the module to improve extensibility and readability by extracting search domains and write/create values into dedicated methods.

…MS ambiguity Rename `_release_unprocessed_qty` to `_unreserve_unprocessed_qty`. The term 'release' can be confused with WMS-specific logic. Using 'unreserve' better aligns with standard Odoo stock terminology and clarifies that the function handles the unreservation of quantities.

…mber of loss declaration instead of relying on number of moves on the picking

…ged in loss picking

lmignon

@nicolas-delbovier-acsone Some little comments about methods and variable naming but it looks good 😏

lmignon · 2026-03-25T12:18:17Z

+            ),
+        ]
+
+    def _find_loss_picking(self):


@nicolas-delbovier-acsone You search for a stock.move.line not for a picking. This method should be renamed.

No, I am indeed looking for a picking.

I look for a picking of type "LOSS" that contains moves that match with my new one I want to create:

def _find_loss_picking(self): similar_loss_lines = self.env["stock.move.line"].search( self._find_loss_picking_moves_domain() ) loss_picking = first(similar_loss_lines.picking_id) # <- LOOK HERE return loss_picking

My bad 😕

lmignon · 2026-03-25T12:19:21Z

+            )
+
+        # Search for an already existing LOSS picking for this quant
+        loss_picking = self._find_loss_picking()


This variable name is confusing loss_picking seems to refer to a picking but in fact it's a stock.move.line....

It is a picking, see my comment above

lmignon

Code review + Functional tests

…efix

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-add-stock-picking-operation-loss-dro branch 2 times, most recently from 368c3d7 to dff9c13 Compare October 9, 2023 08:48

rousseldenis marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2023 07:28

rousseldenis added the needs review label Oct 17, 2023

rousseldenis added this to the 16.0 milestone Oct 17, 2023

lmignon force-pushed the 16.0-add-stock-picking-operation-loss-dro branch from 255be27 to bf41a93 Compare December 21, 2023 08:01

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-add-stock-picking-operation-loss-dro branch from 3bd8305 to 56858c3 Compare April 2, 2024 09:31

github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Aug 4, 2024

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-add-stock-picking-operation-loss-dro branch from 56858c3 to 8b3802c Compare September 3, 2024 08:13

github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Sep 8, 2024

github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Jan 12, 2025

github-actions bot closed this Feb 16, 2025

rousseldenis reopened this Aug 20, 2025

github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Aug 24, 2025

github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Dec 28, 2025

github-actions bot closed this Feb 1, 2026

rousseldenis reopened this Mar 17, 2026

rousseldenis and others added 7 commits March 17, 2026 16:53

[16.0][ADD] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity

319d121

[IMP] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: Add activity schedule

0b271ac

[IMP] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: cancel loss reservation …

0da3c94

…on inventory When an inventory is validated, we need to cancel any remaining pending moves created to make the quantity no more available in case of loss declaration.

[IMP] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: Be less restrictive to c…

ab48601

…ancel the loss move When user want to apply inventory, be less restrictive on inventory_mode check as the values should have been checked in stock module.

[IMP] stock_picking_loss_quantity: Don't lock void ids

ce204dd

[IMP] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: dynamic sequence prefix

00a5ffb

Update the warehouse loss sequence creation to use the specific code defined in the loss picking type. If no code is defined, it falls back to the default "LOSS" string.

[IMP] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: link similar loss move l…

2fa0d9f

…ines to same loss picking

nicolas-delbovier-acsone force-pushed the 16.0-add-stock-picking-operation-loss-dro branch from 8b3802c to 2fa0d9f Compare March 17, 2026 15:53

nicolas-delbovier-acsone added 7 commits March 17, 2026 16:58

[FIX] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: fix pre-commit

b41d7e3

[FIX] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: make sure the loss moves…

4dbb82d

… do not get merged

[FIX] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: do not allow to declare …

f76302c

…a loss on loss pickings

[FIX] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: use moves instead of mov…

994c2bc

…e lines to count number of loss declaration on loss picking Each loss declaration creates a single move on the loss picking but it is not sure that every move has a single move line

[FIX] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: ensure every loss move i…

9452c73

…s confirmed and linked to a move line when using `loss_auto_clear_threshold=1`

[IMP] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: Add unit test to show th…

e791a5c

…at auto-clearing parent location also clears child location

github-actions bot removed the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Mar 22, 2026

lmignon suggested changes Mar 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

nicolas-delbovier-acsone added 5 commits March 24, 2026 11:32

[REF] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: extract logic into methods

38c28da

Refactor the module to improve extensibility and readability by extracting search domains and write/create values into dedicated methods.

[IMP] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: use a counter for the nu…

cada8b5

…mber of loss declaration instead of relying on number of moves on the picking

[FIX] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: ensure all moves get mer…

6123c0a

…ged in loss picking

[FIX] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: do not use self in loop

40985a6

lmignon suggested changes Mar 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

lmignon approved these changes Mar 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

[FIX] stock_picking_operation_loss_quantity: invalid loss sequence pr…

3336ca7

…efix

Uh oh!

Conversation

rousseldenis commented Oct 6, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lmignon commented Dec 20, 2023

Uh oh!

rousseldenis commented Feb 9, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 4, 2024

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 12, 2025

Uh oh!

lmignon commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 28, 2025

Uh oh!

lmignon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lmignon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nicolas-delbovier-acsone Mar 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lmignon left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

rousseldenis commented Oct 6, 2023 •

edited

Loading

nicolas-delbovier-acsone Mar 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

lmignon left a comment •

edited

Loading