[16.0][ADD] stock_available_to_promise_release_restrict_lot #943
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sbejaoui
changed the title
sbejaoui
force-pushed
the
16.0-stock_available_to_promise_release_restrict_lot-sbj
branch
from
d757a5c to
d564086
Compare
lmignon
suggested changes
Oct 30, 2024
stock_available_to_promise_release_restrict_lot/models/stock_move.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
sbejaoui
force-pushed
the
16.0-stock_available_to_promise_release_restrict_lot-sbj
branch
from
d564086 to
764f1a3
Compare
sbejaoui
force-pushed
the
16.0-stock_available_to_promise_release_restrict_lot-sbj
branch
from
764f1a3 to
6716ca7
Compare
sbejaoui
force-pushed
the
16.0-stock_available_to_promise_release_restrict_lot-sbj
branch
from
6716ca7 to
2d19580
Compare
jbaudoux
requested changes
Dec 31, 2024
|
|
||
| def _previous_promised_qty_sql_lateral_where(self, warehouse): | ||
| sql, params = super()._previous_promised_qty_sql_lateral_where(warehouse) | ||
| sql += "AND m.restrict_lot_id is null" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would not do this. If you place a move without restrict lot, any move before should reserve a qty no matter they are restricted to a lot or not.
Example:
Move1 for lotA
Move2 for any lot. Should consider the previous Move1 taking from stock
Comment on lines
+18
to
+40
| return AND( | ||
| [ | ||
| [ | ||
| ("restrict_lot_id", "=", self.restrict_lot_id.id), | ||
| ("state", "not in", ["done", "cancel"]), | ||
| ("id", "!=", self.id), | ||
| ], | ||
| OR( | ||
| [ | ||
| [("priority", ">", self.priority)], | ||
| [ | ||
| ("priority", "=", self.priority), | ||
| ("date_priority", "<", self.date_priority), | ||
| ], | ||
| [ | ||
| ("priority", "=", self.priority), | ||
| ("date_priority", "=", self.date_priority), | ||
| ("id", "<", self.id), | ||
| ], | ||
| ] | ||
| ), | ||
| ] | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems to miss quite a few things in this domain: need_release, outgoing, picking type, locations...
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When both stock_available_to_promise_release and stock_restrict_lot modules are installed, the calculation of quantities available to promise doesn't properly account for lot restrictions. This results in a priority conflict, where higher-priority moves that are restricted to a specific lot receive available quantities from any lot, bypassing their lot restriction.
This glue module enhances stock move allocation by: