[MIG] stock_storage_type: Migration to 16.0 by rousseldenis · Pull Request #470 · OCA/wms

rousseldenis · 2022-10-18T12:09:38Z

Depends on :

TODO:

Remove test-requirements.txt entries

rousseldenis · 2022-10-18T12:09:57Z

/ocabot migration stock_storage_type

rousseldenis · 2022-10-18T12:47:40Z

@jbaudoux @lmignon I think this is a first testable version.

jbaudoux · 2022-10-19T15:21:03Z

@rousseldenis Do you think we can replace stock.location.storage.type by the new standard stock.storage.category and add a tab on the "Storage Category" called "Capacity by Storage" where you show the list of available storage types?
Drawback I see is:

the max_height won't be supported for the capacity by package type or product
the location can only have a single storage category but that's not bad limitation

rousseldenis · 2022-10-19T15:23:56Z

@rousseldenis Do you think we can replace stock.location.storage.type by the new standard stock.storage.category and add a tab on the "Storage Category" called "Capacity by Storage" where you show the list of available storage types? Drawback I see is:

the max_height won't be supported for the capacity by package type or product

the location can only have a single storage category but that's not bad limitation

Not yet tested but that can make sense to get back to standard.

jbaudoux · 2022-10-20T10:03:40Z

@rousseldenis Coming back on this:

the location can only have a single storage category but that's not bad limitation

I checked more deeply the implications and that would mean that the allow_new_product needs to be also added on the relation between the storage category and the product/pack storage. It would be an optional setting overriding the default one from the category.

Today we are using this config: Location A has:

location storage type LST-1 is empty for product/pack storage type PST-X
location storage type LST-2 is do not mix for product/pack storage type PST-Y

That would become: location A has:

location storage category LC-12 for product/pack storage type PST-X in mode is empty and for PST-Y in mode do not mix

lmignon · 2022-10-20T10:07:24Z

@rousseldenis Coming back on this:

the location can only have a single storage category but that's not bad limitation

I checked more deeply the implications and that would mean that the allow_new_product needs to be also added on the relation between the storage category and the product/pack storage. It would be an optional setting overriding the default one from the category.

Today we are using this config: Location A has:
* location storage type LST-1 is empty for product/pack storage type PST-X

* location storage type LST-2 is do not mix for product/pack storage type PST-Y
That would become: location A has:
* location storage category LC-12 for product/pack storage type PST-X in mode is empty and for PST-Y in mode do not mix

If we add information on the relation between storage category and pack/product storage, we could also add the max_weight at the same level

jbaudoux · 2022-10-20T10:10:14Z

If we add information on the relation between storage category and pack/product storage, we could also add the max_weight at the same level

The max weight/height is a location characteristic not depending on what you put in. According to me, no need to put that on the relation.

lmignon · 2022-10-20T10:16:08Z

The max weight/height is a location characteristic not depending on what you put in. According to me, no need to put that on the relation.

It makes sens. That means we can remove all the logic used to compute this max_height on the stock_location and declare the field on the stock_location if it doesn't exist.

lmignon · 2022-10-20T10:29:33Z

@jbaudoux

Since stock.package.storage.typeis now a stock.package.type, we already have the relation on stock.storage.category. The only missing piece according to our last comment is that we should add an allow_new_product optional field on this relation. (Implemented by stock.storage.category.capacity)

jbaudoux · 2022-10-20T10:59:23Z

Since stock.package.storage.typeis now a stock.package.type, we already have the relation on stock.storage.category. The only missing piece according to our last comment is that we should add an allow_new_product optional field on this relation. (Implemented by stock.storage.category.capacity)

No, you cannot replace stock.package.storage.typeby stock.package.type. It is a complete different concept. The package type will say for example that it is a pallet. The storage type will tell the putaway configuration to apply. We need the 2 concepts as 2 different products on a pallet can require completely different putaway configuration.

jbaudoux · 2022-10-20T11:05:06Z

It makes sens. That means we can remove all the logic used to compute this max_height on the stock_location and declare the field on the stock_location if it doesn't exist.

It can be replaced by a related readonly to the storage category.

rousseldenis · 2022-10-20T12:21:10Z

No, you cannot replace stock.package.storage.typeby stock.package.type. It is a complete different concept.

@jbaudoux Have you tested it on runboat ? I made it working with nothing changed at tests levels.

jbaudoux · 2022-10-20T13:22:54Z

No, you cannot replace stock.package.storage.typeby stock.package.type. It is a complete different concept.

@jbaudoux Have you tested it on runboat ? I made it working with nothing changed at tests levels.

The issue is that it is impossible to configure because it is 2 different concepts. We need multiple package storage types for a same package type. The package storage type represent the putaway rule you set for the package type. And we have many rules (package storage type) for a box or a pallet (package type).

jbaudoux

You cannot replace stock.package.storage.type by stock.package.type.
See previous comments

jbaudoux · 2022-10-24T09:26:07Z

The issue is that it is impossible to configure because it is 2 different concepts. We need multiple package storage types for a same package type. The package storage type represent the putaway rule you set for the package type. And we have many rules (package storage type) for a box or a pallet (package type).

After discussion, we can use the new stock.package.type instead of stock.package.storage. However, this is not to be confused by the package type OCA module (https://github.com/OCA/product-attribute/tree/14.0/product_packaging_type) which has then to not be replaced by the new stock.package.type

…e_putaway_sequence

rousseldenis · 2023-03-16T08:50:18Z

@jbaudoux I think this is ready

jbaudoux

The README needs to be rewritten.

I would also rename all pack_putaway_strategy into package_type_putaway_strategy

rousseldenis · 2023-04-14T07:56:57Z

@jbaudoux @lmignon This one seems ready and cover now the flow without package (put in pack) for the allowed destinations

…ry Capacity

refs #67049

…s to apply allowed destinations without packages Rename the putaway strategy method name to take into account package type As in some flows, it could have no package defined (no put in pack), fallback on the product default package type and apply the allowed destination strategy

…t auto assignation from product

…ions

… location

…ructure If a view location has a strategy == 'none' and a sequence to be applied, the first call to _get_putaway_strategy in Odoo core will return the first internal child (and no strategy will be applied at all). So, if the location is a view and has no putaway rules for that product, substitute the child_internal_location_ids field value to self.

jbaudoux

LG now

rousseldenis · 2023-07-13T12:58:26Z

/ocabot merge nobump

OCA-git-bot · 2023-07-13T12:58:41Z

On my way to merge this fine PR!
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-470-by-rousseldenis-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

OCA-git-bot · 2023-07-13T13:04:33Z

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 731f26f. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

rousseldenis added the work in progress label Oct 18, 2022

OCA-git-bot added this to the 16.0 milestone Oct 18, 2022

OCA-git-bot mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2022

Migration to version 16.0 #461

Open

22 tasks

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-mig-stock_storage_type-dro branch 3 times, most recently from 2d2dab5 to 7fcf545 Compare October 18, 2022 12:42

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-mig-stock_storage_type-dro branch from 7fcf545 to f6445b9 Compare October 18, 2022 14:19

rousseldenis closed this Oct 19, 2022

rousseldenis reopened this Oct 19, 2022

rousseldenis commented Oct 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

Comment thread stock_storage_type/tests/test_storage_type_move.py

rousseldenis closed this Oct 19, 2022

rousseldenis reopened this Oct 19, 2022

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-mig-stock_storage_type-dro branch from f6445b9 to e89ddcc Compare October 19, 2022 15:07

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-mig-stock_storage_type-dro branch 2 times, most recently from cf0c5f3 to ca7599a Compare October 20, 2022 12:45

jbaudoux requested changes Oct 20, 2022

View reviewed changes

rousseldenis added 3 commits March 13, 2023 17:03

[IMP] stock_storage_type: Improve messages and code logic

7e26b16

[IMP] stock_storage_type: Change pack_putaway_sequence to package_typ…

0a19e2d

…e_putaway_sequence

[IMP] stock_storage_type: Better Stock Storage Category name display

c5cac07

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-mig-stock_storage_type-dro branch from 7a29e71 to 5d3249b Compare March 16, 2023 08:03

jbaudoux requested changes Mar 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-mig-stock_storage_type-dro branch 2 times, most recently from 4003944 to 1bcd098 Compare April 14, 2023 07:49

lmignon approved these changes Apr 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-mig-stock_storage_type-dro branch from 75b2630 to 705fc81 Compare April 28, 2023 13:10

rousseldenis added 4 commits April 28, 2023 15:15

[IMP] stock_storage_type: Remove active field on Stock Storage Catego…

0e57890

…ry Capacity

[FIX] stock_storage_type: Improve migration scripts

a82001b

refs #67049

[FIX] stock_storage_type: Fix the behaviour to get the package type a…

46b937e

…t auto assignation from product

rousseldenis force-pushed the 16.0-mig-stock_storage_type-dro branch from 705fc81 to 46b937e Compare April 28, 2023 13:15

rousseldenis added 5 commits May 2, 2023 13:27

[IMP] stock_storage_type: Set the category from migrated one on locat…

b15b474

…ions

[IMP] stock_storage_type: Add 'Allow new product' on Package Type view

ab51263

[IMP] stock_storage_type: Allow to re-apply putaway rules on computed…

ef70014

… location

[FIX] stock_storage_type: Remove unused code

a43fbfe

jbaudoux approved these changes Jul 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

OCA-git-bot added the approved label Jul 4, 2023

OCA-git-bot added the bot is merging ⏳ label Jul 13, 2023

OCA-git-bot merged commit f44ad54 into OCA:16.0 Jul 13, 2023

OCA-git-bot added merged 🎉 and removed bot is merging ⏳ labels Jul 13, 2023

Uh oh!

Conversation

rousseldenis commented Oct 18, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rousseldenis commented Oct 18, 2022

Uh oh!

rousseldenis commented Oct 18, 2022

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jbaudoux commented Oct 19, 2022

Uh oh!

rousseldenis commented Oct 19, 2022

Uh oh!

jbaudoux commented Oct 20, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lmignon commented Oct 20, 2022

Uh oh!

jbaudoux commented Oct 20, 2022

Uh oh!

lmignon commented Oct 20, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lmignon commented Oct 20, 2022

Uh oh!

jbaudoux commented Oct 20, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jbaudoux commented Oct 20, 2022

Uh oh!

rousseldenis commented Oct 20, 2022

Uh oh!

jbaudoux commented Oct 20, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jbaudoux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jbaudoux commented Oct 24, 2022

Uh oh!

rousseldenis commented Mar 16, 2023

Uh oh!

jbaudoux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rousseldenis commented Apr 14, 2023

Uh oh!

jbaudoux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rousseldenis commented Jul 13, 2023

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented Jul 13, 2023

Uh oh!

OCA-git-bot commented Jul 13, 2023

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

15 participants

rousseldenis commented Oct 18, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jbaudoux commented Oct 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

lmignon commented Oct 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jbaudoux commented Oct 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jbaudoux commented Oct 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading