Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[17.0][MIG] rma #483

Merged
merged 175 commits into from
Mar 12, 2024
Merged

[17.0][MIG] rma #483

merged 175 commits into from
Mar 12, 2024

Conversation

AaronHForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

Migration of the core module. Still WIP.

JordiBForgeFlow and others added 29 commits March 6, 2024 08:31
* fix assignment of moves.
* default qty in rma lines.
* remove account dependency.
* test and flake8 fixes.
… supplier

[IMP]Separate menus for customer and supplier operations
* Add active field to rma operation
* Added tests
* Fix travis
* Fix create supplier rma from customer rma
* rma: receipt_policy selections not matching.
* rma_sale: fix _prepare_rma_line_from_sale_order_line.
* remove unneded copy attributes.
* simplify action_view methods.
* fix wrong naming.
* fix misplaced views.
* fix wrong count and view actions for rma.orders in invoices.
* fix error when installing the module.
* remove unneded data update when preparing rma lines from invoice lines.
* minor extra fixes.
* remove unneded copy and ondelete attributes.
* simplify action_view methods.
* fix rma line supplier view.
* fix wizard.
* extend README.
* minor extra fixes.
LoisRForgeFlow and others added 23 commits March 6, 2024 08:31
We shoul not force reservation on next steps on a multi step
route, oherwise a inconsistency is generated and the transfers
cannot be processed or cancel so the user gets stuck ("it is
not possible to unreserve more products that you have in stock"
error).
In the current implementation of Odoo's _assign_picking() method in stock.move, there's a conditional check that looks at whether all the moves associated with a picking have the same partner_id and origin. If any move doesn't align with these conditions, the origin of the picking is set to False.

        if any(picking.partner_id.id != m.partner_id.id or
                picking.origin != m.origin for m in moves):
            # If a picking is found, we'll append `move` to its move list and thus its
            # `partner_id` and `ref` field will refer to multiple records. In this
            # case, we chose to  wipe them.
            picking.write({
                'partner_id': False,
                'origin': False,
            })
In the context of RMA when we have multiple moves associated with a picking, each coming from a different RMA order line, we encounter a problem. Each move has its origin set as the name of the RMA orde line (line.name), so as soon as a second move from a different line is appended to the picking, the origin of the picking is wiped, because it doesn't match the origin of the first move.

In order to prevent the partner_id of the picking from being set to False when there are multiple associated moves, I propose that we change the origin of the procurement from the name of the RMA line to the name of the procurement group (group.name). This way, all moves associated with a picking will share the same origin, preserving the origin of the picking and ensuring it doesn't get inadvertently set to False.
…ma lines created (#452)

* [14.0][IMP] added default operation on rma group, easy setup before rma lines created

* [IMP] added fields for default route created by wizard on rma group

* fix: get right price after create rma order line
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.