2-steps receipt. A reordering rule created a picking from Input to Stock
and a purchase order to fulfill the need from Input. The user now
decreases the quantity of the purchase order and then confirms it: an
unexpected picking is created.
To reproduce the issue:
1. In Settings, enable "Multi-Step Routes"
2. Edit the warehouse:
- Incoming Shipments: 2 steps
3. Create a product P:
- Type: Storable
- With a vendor
- Routes: Buy
4. Add a reordering rule to P:
- Min = Max = 0
5. Create and confirm a planned delivery order with 5 x P
6. Run the scheduler, it should create:
- An internal transfer IT (Input -> Stock) with one stock move SM
- A purchase order PO
7. Edit PO:
- 4 x P (instead of 5)
8. Confirm PO
9. List all transfers related to P
Error: There is a transfer from Stock to Input with 1 x P. It should not
exist and its stock move should be merged with SM
As explained, when running the scheduler, a stock move from Input to
Stock is created. Let SM01 be that stock move.
When confirming the PO, two stock moves SM02 and SM03 are created, both
from Vendors to Input. The first one has a quantity equal to 5 and the
second one to -1. When confirming these stock moves, we apply the 'push
rules'
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0183298293192538a801f52262c047ea34a1b76a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1233
Since SM02 already has one `move_dest_ids` (i.e., SM01), we skip it.
However, we can apply a push rule on SM03. It creates an new stock move
SM04 with -1 x P from Input to Stock:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7e8a038e3a08e32a9a32ac66ef0dc67800af95cb/addons/stock/models/stock_rule.py#L192-L196
And, as shown in the above code, we then define this new SM04 as a
`move_dest_ids` of SM03. So, at that point, here is the situation:
| Name | Qty | From | To | Dest |
|------|-----|---------|-------|------|
| SM01 | 5 | Input | Stock | / |
| SM02 | 5 | Vendors | Input | SM01 |
| SM03 | -1 | Vendors | Input | SM04 |
| SM04 | -1 | Input | Stock | / |
Back to the confirmation of SM2 and SM3, we eventually try to confirm
the moves created from push rules (i.e., SM04):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0183298293192538a801f52262c047ea34a1b76a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1268-L1269
As shown, we don't define any `merge_into`. During the confirmation of
SM04, we try to assign it to a picking. However, because of its negative
qty, we skip it:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0183298293192538a801f52262c047ea34a1b76a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1077-L1081
Then, still in the confirmation of SM04, we try to merge it with some
other SMs. Because there isn't any `merge_into`, we try to find some
candidates:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0183298293192538a801f52262c047ea34a1b76a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L839-L840
And because SM04 does not have any picking, we don't find any candidate:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0183298293192538a801f52262c047ea34a1b76a/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L826-L828
As a result, we don't merge it and we will create the unexpected
picking.
=> In such situation (when confirming a negative push move), we should
suggest some candidates.
Last but not least: suppose the above issue as fixed and reproduce the
same steps, but this time the product P has a description. Again, when
confirming the PO, the same unexpected picking will be created.
When running the scheduler, SM01 is created and its field
`description_picking` is defined thanks to the description of P:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/f11d9c3ea08fc98e62459602d9bce004e83898db/addons/stock/models/product.py#L237-L243
However, when creating SM03, we use the name of the purchase line (i.e.,
the product's name) as description because, in our case, the product
does not have any `description_pickingin`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c18b2ce767dd5a5b4dbe766b849b56243dffb723/addons/purchase_stock/models/purchase.py#L523
And, as shown before, SM04 is partially a copy of SM03: it has the same
`description_picking`. As a result, SM01 and SM04 doesn't have the same
value for that field and we can not merge them.
OPW-2861605
closesodoo/odoo#97599
X-original-commit: 43ca47cdfec696b847f716984f76df16de7b97b7
Signed-off-by: Tiffany Chang <tic@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
TLDR:
* invoices are implemented using computed methods instead of onchange
* the synchronization only happens when switching tabs in the Form view
to improve perfs.
_______________________________________________________________________
The whole engine of the synchronization of Invoices to the Journal
Entries has been refactored
* by using computed fields instead of onchange functions
* by synchronizing only from invoice to journal entry in `create` and
`write`
* by saving when switching tabs on the Invoice form, to synchronize
before showing the values
This comes with numerous advantages:
* no need to call the onchange methods manually
* no need to use the Form emulator to build invoices (i.e. EDI, OCR,
intercompany, ...)
* the performance for invoices with many lines improves drastically, going
from 2 minutes to 4 seconds to create an invoice with 500 lines
* the model is more declarative, we can now see how the values are computed
instead of having the values being copied from various places.
* remove the hack in `onchange` that disabled the recursivity of it,
which was unexpected and needed to be managed manually in all the
onchange methods
This means that:
* Some fields need to be exclusively computed on journal entries values
or invoice values, more specifically the Tax Summary widget.
It is now
- computed from entry lines, when opening the view
- computed from invoice lines when changing those, because the tax lines
will need to be recomputed anyways, erasing previously set values
- set with an inverse function when saving; after the sync has been done
* Some possible operations previously possible have been dropped.
(i.e. look at the removed test test_in_invoice_line_onchange_accounting_fields_1)
This is because such a behavior was undefined (how is changing the balance going
to affect the unit price? How is the amount currency going to affect it?)
_______________________________________________________________________
Implementation Details
----------------------
The "dynamic lines", meaning the payment terms and the tax lines are now
only created in the `create` and `write` functions.
In order to reduce code duplication, it has been implemented using
context managers used in both `account.move` and `account.move.line`
These context managers help comparing the values before/after, acting
like a local `onchange`, but getting benefit from the dirty flags from
the `compute` dependences.
This is relying on computed fields on the move (`needed_terms`) and on
the lines (`compute_all_tax`) which contain the values needed for the
related move.
Depending on the needed values and the existing values (`term_key` and
`tax_key`, respectively) the context manager will determine what needs
to be created/updated/deleted.
Some related changes are to produce a `dict` instead of a `str` for the
`tax_totals` (previously `tax_totals_json`) fields, by simplicity to
reduce the complexity of IO, and simplicity of debugging, because the
logic of the field needed to change (cannot be computed at the same time
anymore since it needed the lines to be synced)
By simplicity, and also because it makes more sense, some boolean fields
have been merged into `display_type`:
* `is_rounding_line`
* `exclude_from_invoice_tab`
* `is_anglo_saxon_line`
The `price_unit`, `quantity` and other "invoice fields" are now not set
anymore on lines that are not product lines since it didn't make any
sense to have it.
Performances
------------
You have to keep in mind that a simple `create` didn't compute a lot of
fields, for instance not taxes were set, no payment terms,...
Now it does.
```python
import random
from timeit import timeit
from odoo import Command
domain = [('company_id', 'in', (False, self.env.company.id))]
products = self.env['product.product'].search(domain).ids
partners = self.env['res.partner'].search(domain).ids
taxes = self.env['account.tax'].search(domain).ids
def create(nmove, nline):
self.env['account.move'].create([
{
'move_type': 'out_invoice',
'partner_id': random.choice(partners),
'invoice_line_ids': [
Command.create({
'name': f'line{i}',
'product_id': random.choice(products),
'tax_ids': [Command.set([random.choice(taxes)])],
})
for i in range(nline)
]
}
for j in range(nmove)
])
# After | Before
print(timeit("create(1, 1)", globals=globals(), number=1)) # 0.11 | 0.09
print(timeit("create(100, 1)", globals=globals(), number=1)) # 2.76 | 2.50
print(timeit("create(500, 1)", globals=globals(), number=1)) # 14.56 | 12.34
print(timeit("create(1, 100)", globals=globals(), number=1)) # 1.03 | 5.52
print(timeit("create(1, 500)", globals=globals(), number=1)) # 3.99 | 125.02
print(timeit("create(50, 50)", globals=globals(), number=1)) # 19.44 | 79.55
```
Another metric that can be used is running the test suite with
`--test-tags=/account` (only `account` installed)
* before: 404s, 267127 queries (366 tests)
* after: 318s, 232125 queries (362 tests)
Why this commit title?
----------------------
Someone told me that this was the perfect way of naming your commits.
c04065abd8
task-2711317
closesodoo/odoo#96134
Related: odoo/upgrade#3715
Related: odoo/enterprise#29758
Signed-off-by: Laurent Smet <las@odoo.com>
Task: 2856281
- Remove user_type_id, account.account.type model, internal_type
- Add account_type that is a simple selection field
- Move internal_group and include_initial_balance to account.account
- Because of these changes, type_control_ids on account.journal is also removed
closesodoo/odoo#93212
Related: odoo/documentation#2223
Related: odoo/upgrade#3595
Related: odoo/enterprise#28205
Signed-off-by: Cedric Snauwaert <csn@odoo.com>
In the web client, in a real use case, it's not possible
to write on fields which are invisible,
as it's not possible to write on fields which are readonly.
This is a first step in the goal to change the behavior
of the `groups=` attribute in the back-end views,
to remove them for the view instead of making them invisible.
This is mainly to reduce the diff of the revision that will introduce
the mentioned above behavior change.
As nodes with `groups=` will be removed from the view
when the user doesn't have the group, it's no longer possible
to set a value on a field having a `groups=` the user doesn't have
in the `Form` test class, as the field will no longer be at all in the
view.
However, these unit tests shouldn't have been able to set values
on invisible fields in the first place.
This revision therefore aims to correct the unit tests setting value
on fields which were invisible because the user executing the
test was not part of the required group(s) for these fields
to be visible in the view.
closesodoo/odoo#94337
Related: odoo/enterprise#28936
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
In module mail, invalidating 'message_ids' on a mail thread also
invalidates its inverse field 'res_id' on messages. If you haven't
flushed it before, your cache will be inconsistent, as shown by the test
/mail:TestMailgateway.test_message_process_bounce_records_channel.
In module purchase_stock, add depends on report.stock.quantity. This
ensures that when the model is queried after changes in other models,
the data on which the SQL view depends is flushed to the database before
querying that model's table.
closesodoo/odoo#66938
Related: odoo/enterprise#16722
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Vincent Schippefilt <vsc@odoo.com>
Updating the scheduled date of a delivery doesn't update the quantity to
order of an orderpoint
To reproduce the issue:
(Need purchase)
1. Create a storable product P with a seller
2. Create and confirm a planned delivery D with 1 x P
3. Open the replenishment page
- There should be a line for P (Forecast: -1, To Order: 1)
4. Edit D and postpone the scheduled date
5. Go back to replenishment page
Error: The line is still present, its forecast qty is correct (0) but
the quantity to order is still 1 (instead of 0)
`qty_to_order` is a stored field, so when loading the replenishment
page, its compute method is not called. Moreover, even though
`qty_to_order` depends on `qty_forecast` and the compute method of
`qty_forecast` is called, it still won't trigger the compute:
when setting the value of `qty_forecast` from its compute method, it
will lead to:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/b54f78de307543efcea934206806f361eaac811a/odoo/fields.py#L1106-L1109
So, as shown and explained, we bypass the `write` of `BaseModel` and
skip the business logic and the recomputations
The compute of `qty_to_order` should actually be triggered earlier: when
we edit the scheduled date (step 4). That's the reason why this commit
adds a dependency to the compute of `qty_forecast`: it makes more sense
and becomes an implicit dependency of `qty_to_order` -> update the
scheduled date will trigger the compute of `qty_to_order`
OPW-2868167
closesodoo/odoo#94400
X-original-commit: 791b68fc02cbc4dc5b376e5fc5d37e725f88d0dc
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
1. Activate anglo saxon accounting
2. Create product with automated inventory valuation and standard pricing
3. Set decimal accuracy to 6
4. Set product cost price to 0,01719
5. Create PO for 30.000 items -> price = 0,01782 -> total = 534,6
6. Receive goods -> stock journal entry = 515,7 (based on the cost, ok)
7. Create vendor bill
Price difference is incorrect if you have a tax rate in the vendor bill
`price_unit_val_dif` will be rounded to 0.02
Multiplied by a great quantity the result will be wrong (84.30)
Without using the tax rate the price difference amount is the expected one
This commit partially revert 643d91ef5ebfb29fde142294ced82c470d42c136
to improve the original fix.
opw-2849074
closesodoo/odoo#94346
X-original-commit: 315a18f12f9d67284bbd8b027ca652db17aae9d2
Signed-off-by: Laurent Smet <las@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Grazioso Andrea (agr) <agr@odoo.com>
Instead of having to repeatedly manually call `onchange_quantity` at
different points in the code, it is better to have it be computed
instead.
- Logic is left unchanged,
- onchange calls from other methods are removed, and
- tests are adjusted to properly handle compute. I.e. remove
'date_planned': datetime.today().strftime(DEFAULT_SERVER_DATETIME_FORMAT)
from when PO lines are created since this sometimes resulted in
inconsistent date_planned values for PO line and the PO date_order
(by 1 sec), which could lead to inconsistently created 'date_deadline'
values for stock_moves' created by PO line qty changes. Issue
previously didn't exist because onchange was not always called.
Part of Task: 2695116 (to avoid adding more onchange calls for new
feature)
Part-of: odoo/odoo#87656
Since https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/86682, when a user opens
the replenishment view, the Days to Purchase are not taken into
consideration when calculating the forecast of a product.
This was due to the fact that the Days to Purchase are now taken from the
orderpoint and not from the company settings. This is fixed by taking
the company setting if no value from the orderpoint is sent to the
method.
closesodoo/odoo#93252
Task-id: 2871408
X-original-commit: ac1df1949e4523aff65543f1381300fc7de3b4e4
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux (arm) <arm@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: npi-odoo <npi@odoo.com>
This commit contains the following:
1) Added sudo to product record when adding supplier info during PO confirm, so that
supplier info is created regardless of who is confirming the PO.
2) the test test_multicompany_partner_bank was removed since it was creating two
res partner banks with the same partner and setting company_id to two seperate companies
while currently the company_id is related to the company partner thus this can no longer
happen.
3) test_message_qty_already_received was changed to not set the company_id explicitly as
it caused unexpected cache miss in the runbot.
task : 2764771
Part-of: odoo/odoo#91640
- Add the concept of 'Days to Prepare MO' in mrp, similar to 'Days to
Purchase' but defined at the product level. Both concepts are merged into
Days to Order at the orderpoint level, taking the value of Days to Purchase
for orderpoints with a buy route and Days to Prepare MO for orderpoint with a
manufacturing route.
- Add the concept of 'Visibility Days' on orderpoints. The idea is to
avoid to create through reordering rules multiple small orders for the
same product on a small time frame but rather to order directly a bigger
quantity. When Visibility Days are defined, the quantity of the orders
created by a RR is not the quantity forecasted at Today + Lead times
(quantity that triggered the order according to the RR), but the
quantity forecasted at Today + Lead Times + Visibility days.
The Visibility Days are different for purchase and manufacturing.
Changing the route of the orderpoint will change its value. They
can be defined at the company level and further fine-tuned on the
orderpoint. In case of change of the parameters at the company level,
only orderpoints without a specific value of Visibility Days will
be changed.
- Alignement between Manufacturing and Purchase Security Lead Time
(previously the Manufacturing Security Lead time didn't impact the
procurement date, instead the manufacturing time was made longer).
closesodoo/odoo#86682
Task-id: 2738838
Pr: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/86682
Related: odoo/upgrade#3415
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create a storable product “P1”:
- Standard price: 20$
- Add vendor in the Purchase tab:
- name: Azure Interior
- min qty: 10
- price: $15
- Create a PO:
- Vendor: "Azure Interior"
- Product line: “P1”
Automatically, the Quantity field will automatically get populated as 10 Units
and price:$15 as per the pricelist
- Confirm the PO
A picking will be created containing a stock_move with a price of $15 and a QTY of 10
- Edit the Quantity to 9 Units and save the PO
The price will be updated to $20 on the PO line, but not in the `stock.move`
Problem:
When we update the qty in the PO line, a new move with a quantity of “-1” and
a price of “$20” will be created.
Then, it will be merged with the initial move, but since they are not identical in the price,
we can't merge them, so a new picking is created:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/dda9700d8236091626cbd78efc0ca4116e1e1acd/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L869-L881
Solution:
when the price is updated in a PO line, the price of its linked `stock.move` must also be updated
opw-2825160
closesodoo/odoo#92208
X-original-commit: c8d74a1cb4bfed8226e52e0bc6f243b4e483fc98
Signed-off-by: Djamel Touati (otd) <otd@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
In a 2-steps configuration, trigger a reordering rule with the vendor
defined will raise an error
To reproduce the issue:
1. In Settings, enable "Multi-Step Routes"
2. Edit the existing warehouse:
- Incoming Shipments: 2 steps
3. Create a product P:
- Type: Storable
- Add a vendor V
- Routes: Buy
4. Create a reordering rule R for P:
- Trigger: Manual
- Min = Max = 1
5. Open the Replenishment page and edit R:
- Preferred Route: Buy
- Vendor: V
6. Trigger the orderpoint
Error: An Odoo Server Error is displayed "AttributeError:
'product.supplierinfo' object has no attribute 'name'"
When triggering the orderpoint, it leads to
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/c75a1a8ac9eef6c7d7c95b7bbbb22d919b952e26/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L331
However, since [1], the `name` of a `product.supplierinfo` has been
renamed to `partner_id`
[1] f3fe2d50d9
OPW-2780562
closesodoo/odoo#90597
X-original-commit: bda8b0e610f7ec9b0bcb76de3bb52fb6049f62ff
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
Have a purchase tax with cash basis payment enabled
Have a product with said tax
Create a bill with the product, save and confirm
Register a payment
Check CABA entries
There should be 4 entries, but only 2 have been generated
opw-2782561
closesodoo/odoo#89101
X-original-commit: d8d255ec68ab4f220da51fb2be7292dcc74d5783
Signed-off-by: Olivier Colson <oco@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Grazioso Andrea (agr) <agr@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: oco-odoo <oco@odoo.com>
If the user triggers several orderpoints one by one, some purchase order
lines may be merged while they shouldn't.
To reproduce the issue:
1. In Settings, enable "Storage Locations"
2. Create a product P:
- Type: Storable
- With a vendor V
- Route: Buy
3. Add two reordering rules to P:
- Min=Max=1 at WH/Stock
- Min=Max=2 at WH/Stock/Shelf 1
4. Inventory > Operations > Replenishment, trigger the orderpoints of P
(one by one)
5. Open the generated PO
Error: There is only one line with 3 x P, there should be two lines (1 x
P + 2 x P, one for each orderpoint). If the user confirms the PO and
receives the products, the destination location will be Stock or Shelf 1
(depending on the last orderpoint triggered)
Running the orderpoint leads to `_run_buy`, where we try to find an
existing PO line so we can update it (else we will create a new one):
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/5b34adb51eda978aa9ef1a434ab77257d73b9594/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L122-L129
Here is the issue: the filter in `_find_candidate` contains an `or True`
that makes a whole condition useless.
Considering [1], the condition on `move_dest_ids` is only relevant when
an orderpoint is defined. Therefore, we can remove the `or True` and
improve the condition
[1] 63fffa0bee
OPW-2720868
closesodoo/odoo#88959
X-original-commit: 0802d4c61d7b47f0b32a36c5bb0ec49a0f425043
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
Steps to reproduce:
• Create Record: Product Category
- Costing Method: Average
- Inventory Valuation: Automated
- Specify a price difference account (may create new account).
- Ensure Stock Interim (Received) account is reconcilable.
• Create Record: Product
- Product Type: Storable
- Cost Price: 1.01
- Product Category: New Product Category
• Create bill with this product, for a quantity of 10.5
-> The is price difference of 0.1
Issue comes from this commit 286ea6b681e9ba77357f91b546052449f6342f20
which doesn't round if there is a discount.
With this commit we isolate the latter case in order to keep the
price unit rounded if there is no discount.
closesodoo/odoo#88734
X-original-commit: 643d91ef5ebfb29fde142294ced82c470d42c136
Signed-off-by: Florian Gilbert <flg@odoo.com>
* Previously, when reconciling journal items in multi-currencies, the exchange difference entry was created only on the full reconciliation. It will now be created directly at each partial to ensure the ratio between amount_residual_currency and amount_residual is always kept identical.
* Also when reconciling two lines, one with a foreign currency and one expressed in company currency, the reconciliation is now made based on the foreign currency.
==== RATIONALE ====
This patch allows to fix the following use cases (among others)
1) When everything is expressed in foreign currency, the reconciliation is made in that currency:
Suppose EUR is the foreign currency and USD is the company currency. Reconciling:
L1: 120 EUR 60 USD (rate 2:1)
L2: 240 EUR 80 USD (rate 3:1)
..leads to a partial of 120 EUR and min(80, 60) = 60 USD
After the reconciliation, L1 is fully matched but L2 is still open with 120 EUR but only 20 USD.
This is the first problem is the current reconciliation because L2 is supposed to have a rate 3:1 so the residual amount should be 120 / 3 = 40 USD.
Since the rate is no longer consistent on L2, the user will probably close the reconciliation by using another line in EUR or will close manually the reconciliation with 20 USD but without any additional exchange difference journal items explaining where this unconsistency comes from.
2) When the current lines are mixing multiple currencies, the reconciliation is made using the company's currency.
In some countries like Mexico, Ethiopia or Costa Rica, the customer is free to pay an invoice using the company's currency instead of the foreign one.
So, suppose USD is the foreign currency and MXN is the company currency.
The invoice is expressed by:
L1: 120 USD 60 MXN (rate 2:1)
If the customer is paying at a date in which the rate is 3:1, he is free to pay
either L2: 120 USD 40 MXN (rate 3:1), either L2: 40 MXN.
In the second case, he is expecting the invoice to be fully paid because its paiement is equivalent to 120 USD at the payment date.
In Odoo, the second case led to an open balance of 20 MXN and the invoice was not completely paid.
Even this situation could be easily fixed by a manual write-off, this makes the Mexican payment EDI very complicated to fullfil correctly because the government is expecting a complete matching between the invoice and the payment.
When the customer is paying multiple invoices or the invoices are paid using multiple payments, the currently generated mexican EDI file in Odoo was wrong.
==== REFERENCES ====
Original idea suggested by hbto@vauxoo.com. Thanks for the contribution and patience of the many persons having, at some point, helped on that.
github issue: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/issues/37469closesodoo/odoo#84201
Task: 2669371
Related: odoo/enterprise#24268
Signed-off-by: Quentin De Paoli <qdp@odoo.com>
When a PO is in the "To Approve" state, it disappears from the
forecasted report
To reproduce the issue:
1. In Settings, enable "Purchase Order Approval" with a minimum amount
equal to 0
2. Create a storable product P
3. With Marc Demo:
- Create a PO with 50 x P
- Consult the forecasted report of P: there are 50 x P "Forecasted +
Pending"
- Confirm the PO (its state becomes "To Approve")
- Consult the forecasted report of P
Error: The 50 x P disappeared: 0 On Hand, 0 Forecasted, 0 Forecasted +
Pending. We should still see 50 Forecasted + Pending
OPW-2774586
closesodoo/odoo#86476
X-original-commit: c66fc2f3bfd069642fc9ed61ff322a136974a65c
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
Usecase to reproduce:
- Create product 1 with supplier `Vendor` and a delay of 3 days
- Create product 2 with supplier `Vendor` and a delay of 4 days
- Create two procurements with a need for stock at 01-01-2022 (warehouse
1 step)
- Run procurement for product 1
- Run procurement for product 2
The PO contains the two product but the order date is for 3 days before
and not 4. Also the line for product 2 is planned for the 02-01-2022
It happens because the delivery date is computed base on the purchase
order date and the supplier but the procurement is totaly ignore
X-original-commit: aec7fcdb693729f432ae2341c00ef317b65fbcbc
Part-of: odoo/odoo#83430
Suppose a product with several suppliers, all with the same partner. On
the purchase order, the product description will always be based on the
last supplier
To reproduce the issue:
1. Create a vendor V
2. Create a product P:
- Type: Storable
- In Purchase, add a line L01:
- Vendor: V
- Vendor Product Name: Name01
- Vendor Product Code: C01
- Quantity: 1
- Price: 10
- In Purchase, add a second line L02:
- Vendor: V
- Vendor Product Name: Name02
- Vendor Product Code: C02
- Quantity: 20
- Price: 2
- Once P is saved, ensure the lines order in the purchase tab:
- L01
- L02
3. Add a reordering rule on P:
- Min: 1
4. Run the scheduler
5. Open the generated PO
Error: The description is incorrect ("[C02] Name02" instead of "[C01]
Name01")
When computing the display name of the product,
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/7691567286869ca65e63fc79c2cee11e1f415fcb/odoo/models.py#L1728-L1730
`name_get` returns a tuples list: `[(37, '[C01] Name01'), (37, '[C02]
Name02')]` where `37` is the product identifier. This list is then
converted into a dictionary and here is the issue: it will use the last
tuple to define the value for key `37`, i.e. "[C02] Name02". Therefore,
`name_get` should return the correct name, and only this one.
Another issue could be highlighted: when the user changes the quantity
of the purchase order line, if another supplier info is selected, the
description won't be updated (for the same reason as above)
OPW-2702616
closesodoo/odoo#82321
X-original-commit: a42608214f2e9ef3f5e59b4b54cd7f72a6019e06
Signed-off-by: Tiffany Chang <tic@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
This commit rename product_uom_qty into reserved_uom_qty and product_qty
into reserved_qty on stock move line to stop mistake them with the stock
move quantities fields.
Task: 2648449
Part-of: odoo/odoo#80434
The stock convention on location name is always to name the destination
`location_dest_id`. It was not the
case on the stock rule model
Task: 2648449
Part-of: odoo/odoo#80434
Testing purchase order creation assumes the whole test is done the same
day. The assert could failed if the test is run right before midnight
and end the day after.
This commit ensure the time is frozen during all the tests about
purchase order creation.
closesodoo/odoo#80264
X-original-commit: 438e47cdc87fc0f13c61a1ede29a190120dea117
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Remove the Purchase Security Lead Time from the computing of the
purchase order's picking deadline to better reflect that the shipment is
actually meant to arrive earlier than date + security lead time.
Also makes sure that receipts and subsequent pickings (multi-step
reception) are planned the earliest possible, not taking the purchase
security lead time into account.
Task-2656397
Part-of: odoo/odoo#79523
Expected behavior : The log note sent when received quantity is updated should take into account the quantity already received.
Current behavior : The log note sent doesn't take into account the quantity already received for a 'stock_moves'. So it always displays `Received Quantity: 0.0 -> quantity in stock` instead of `Received Quantity: quantity already received -> quantity in stock`
Steps to reproduce the error :
- Create a RFQ with few units of a Storable Product (e.g. 5 units)
- Partially validate the receipt and create a backorder (e.g. 3 units)
- Validate the backorder (e.g. 2 units)
Log notes should be :
`Received Quantity: 0.0 -> 3.0`
`Received Quantity: 3.0 -> 5.0`
But are :
`Received Quantity: 0.0 -> 3.0`
`Received Quantity: 0.0 -> 5.0`
The value is always equal to 0.0 because `qty_received_method == 'stock_moves'` so `line.qty_received` is overridden by 0.0 in parent `_compute_qty_received` even though its value is already set to 0.0 (default) or to the quantity already received
opw-2600221
opw-2613116
closesodoo/odoo#78858
X-original-commit: 0c8ea86fb8d706af139cd2d412d01487e5899df6
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
In a lot of test class, we use `setUp` instead of
`setUpClass`. `setUp` is execute for each test method and `setUpClass`
will be execute only once by Class (and use savepoint + rollback).
Then change setUp into setUpClass reduce the time to make all tests
and avoid to repeat this error for the future.
closesodoo/odoo#78082
Related: odoo/enterprise#21563
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Allow the quantity decrease of Sale Order line of a MTO product.
When increasing de quantities, the related pickings, RFQ / PO are
increased as well, but it wasn't the case if decreasing the quantity.
It should allow the cascade of the decrease in the related pickings as
it would work for the increase. Also modifies a related Purchase Order
if it wasn't yet validated (and thus still a RFQ).
merge_moves was modified so it would allow the merge of negative moves
with positive ones, while trying to "deplete" as much quantity as
possible for each mergeable move.
But negative moves don't always have all required properties to be
compared to the positive ones (some keys might be missing, such as
'created_production_id'). That means we will merge strictly the positive
moves at first as it was done before. But then we try to merge them "less
strictly", using less keys to compare.
Let's say we have those moves (and all other relevant keys matches) :
- move_1 : {qty : 5, created_production_id: 1}
- move_2 : {qty : 3, created_production_id: 2}
- move_3 : {qty : -6, created_production_id: False}
move_1 and move_2 cannot be merged as they don't share the same
created_production_id. But to merge move_3, we'll need to merge it into
move_1 and move_2. It will then deplete move_1 and decrease move_2.
Which will leave us with :
- move_1 : {qty : 0, created_production_id: 1}
- move_2 : {qty : 2, created_production_id: 2}
move_3 will be unliked as its purpose is done.
Task-2513592
Part-of: odoo/odoo#78070
Testing orderpoint generation assumes the whole test is done the same
day. The assert could failed if the test is run right before midnight
and end the day after.
This commit ensure the time is frozen during all the tests about
orderpoints generation
closesodoo/odoo#77307
X-original-commit: 079435eb8386554c475cd82d1f6fbb611bba0339
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
The combination of a RR and a supplier that has a minimum quantity and a
lead time leads to incorrect results
To reproduce the issue:
1. Create a product P:
- Type: Storable
2. Add a reordering rule for P (min: 10, max: 50)
3. Add a vendor to P
- Quantity: 1
- Price: 1
- Delivery Lead Time: 7
4. Run the scheduler
5. Open the generated PO
Error: The order deadline is <today minus 7 days> instead of today. The
receipt date is today instead of <today plus 7 days>
When computing the quantity to order, the method needs the value of
`qty_forecast` (L254 in [1]) The computation of `qty_forecast` leads to
the computation of `lead_days_date`. To do so, it gets the lead days of
the associated stock rule `_get_lead_days`. In this method, a seller is
selected: [2] However, none of the parameter is defined: [3]
In the above case, the seller has a minimum quantity of 1. Therefore,
since this information is not given in [2], the vendor is not selected
and his lead time is therefore not taken into account. So,
`lead_days_date` will be equal to 0 and won't be recomputed. As a
result, the planned delivery date is today. Then, the quantity to order
is computed (L260 in [1]), so later, the module is able to select the
correct seller. However, this one has a lead time of 7 days -> the
generated PO will have the planned date to today and the order deadline
to <today minus 7 days>
Once an orderpoint has its quantity to order defined, its lead time
should be recomputed because it may be different depending to the
selected seller (and thus we should take this quantity into account when
searching for a seller)
[1]
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/59ac8d891de6e20604494d6cfc6fc357a88d226c/addons/stock/models/stock_orderpoint.py#L254-L260
[2]
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/1b03087524080f1a9751b1561cd8891466e72367/addons/purchase_stock/models/stock_rule.py#L153
[3]
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/045c6ad3353bb0849d3f93d3488d8dcd8b8975b0/addons/product/models/product.py#L602
OPW-2614798
closesodoo/odoo#77110
X-original-commit: f2eb1dca99d16d70613c2f724d4b73f273a49ae7
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <adwid@users.noreply.github.com>
The check added in 643e093a4bc9d46973705831697036b56a89b143 was too
strict in case a purchase order was created from an orderpoint
triggering multiple rules. The orderpoint's location could be below
another warehouse that the first rule's location and thus raising the
error.
closesodoo/odoo#77079
X-original-commit: df1f90673fc06f3d535833229d8af3ef6a51dd61
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Rounding in purchase order is 'UP' which is causing issue when doing
receipt in a different uom than the purchase. Rounding should be
'HALF-UP'
Added test in purchase and sales to ensure this issue is detected in the
future.
closesodoo/odoo#76006
X-original-commit: 9d3d1949d20834c92449c989299ac8e67f26d05d
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Divide "Delivery"/"Incoming Shipment" smart button of "Sale"/"Purchase"
order form between normal "Delivery"/"Incoming Shipment" and a
"dropship" picking.
Also clean a little bit technically
task-2486811
Part-of: odoo/odoo#75041
This allows to solve the following use case:
* we are in March
* a SO created during January shows currently a delivered quantity (timesheet on service or delivered goods on storable products): timesheets/pickings were done in February
* creating the accrued entry for January 31 should display accordingly an amount of 0 by default since everything was done in February
Invoices invoice_dates are also taken into account:
* day 0 : delivered 10
* day 2 : 5 invoiced
* accrued entries for 10 if accrual date = day 1, accrued entries for 5 if accrual date = day 3,
followup of task 2255642
closesodoo/odoo#75886
Signed-off-by: Quentin De Paoli (qdp) <qdp@openerp.com>
Steps to reproduce the bug:
- create 2 warehouses A & B
- create a new product and add a seller
- Create an Automated replenishment order of the created product for warehouse A
- click on “Automate orders”
- open PO
- in “other information” tab > change the picking type to the “warehouse B” picking type
- confirm order
- click on the receipt
Problem:
The destination location is “Warehouse A” instead of “Warehouse B”
The problem also appears after the duplication.
Solution:
Use the parent_path to check if the location that the user wants to use is below the original warehouse.
opw-2588082
closesodoo/odoo#75501
X-original-commit: bed546486aa667d735df015de8153d42a9af9a41
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Djamel Touati <DjamelTouati@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: fmdl <florent.mirieu@gmail.com>
Automatically activate `group_multi_currency` if there is more than one active currency,
deactivate it if there is only one active currency
retain sale/pos feature of activating group_product_pricelist
adapt tests accordingly
Task 2610735
closesodoo/odoo#74396
Related: odoo/enterprise#20106
Signed-off-by: Laurent Smet <smetl@users.noreply.github.com>
Step to follow
Do not activate multiple companies, keep it standard to 1
Enable multi-locations and routes
Create a second location for raw materials and a new Receipt operation type with the new location as destination location
Go to routes -> edit the buy route -> add a second rule with "Buy" and save.
Cause of the issue
When a stock rule is created from a stock route, the default company
cannot be found as there is none assigned to the stock route.
Solution
Override the default_get method for stock rules in order to use the
current company
opw-2578984
closesodoo/odoo#74380
X-original-commit: 2b8d7d76adceeca16f97e394a6734bb5be633c3b
Signed-off-by: Victor Feyens (vfe) <vfe@odoo.com>
For data quality purposes and bug prevention, when I reverse an entry,
the reversal should always be postable on a journal having the same type
as the initial Journal Entry's journal.
closesodoo/odoo#72431
Task: 2497529
Related: odoo/enterprise#19543
Signed-off-by: Laurent Smet <smetl@users.noreply.github.com>
Resupplying a product with a purchase order ask to choose the suitable
supplier to put on the purchase order. Another search is perform on top
of that to compute de date to order in order to respect the lead days
promise by the supplier. The issue is that the first search is done with
the orderpoint company into account but not the second one.
This commit passes the company to _select_seller when computing the total
lead days required for an order.
opw : 2557125
closesodoo/odoo#72466
X-original-commit: c1bd985ef6a77c8848c4a2a8b92508511d9d8638
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
1. add packaging to PO lines
2. packaging on PO/SO lines can be propagate to MO
3. add package type to packaging
4. on picking types, we can choose to only reserve full packaging. That
means if you want 1 pallet(100 units) and you have 50 units in stock. It
won't be reserved.
5. suggest suitable packaging for PO/SO/MO line according to the product
qty
Task-2357259
PR #68654
UPG PR odoo/upgrade#2444
When changing the product price precision, this can lead to incorrect
stock valuations.
To reproduce the error:
(Enable debug mode)
1. Go to Settings > Technical > Database Strucutre > Decimal Accuracy
2. Edit Product Price:
- Digits: 4
3. Create a Product Category PC:
- Costing Method: FIFO
4. Create a Product P:
- Product Type: Storable Product
- Product Category: PC
5. Create a RfQ with product P:
- Quantity: 1000
- Unit Price: 0.035
6. Confirm Order, Receive Products, Validate
7. Click on Valuation
Error: The total value is equal to $40 instead of $35. The calculation
was done after rounding the unit price: $0.035 becomes $0.04, then
1000*0.04=$40.
When confirming the RfQ, a stock move is created. To do so, the method
`_get_stock_move_price_unit` is called. When validating the delivery, it
recomputes the unit price thanks to method `_get_price_unit`. In both
situation, and if the line has taxes, the method `compute_all` is called
like this:
```python
price_unit = line.taxes_id.with_context(round=False).compute_all(price_unit,
currency=line.order_id.currency_id, quantity=1.0)['total_void']
```
But here is the problem. In this method, total amount is computed with
this line:
```python
base = currency.round(price_unit * quantity)
```
However, `quantity` is equal to 1 and the multiplication is rounded
using the currency precision. As a result, `base` is equal to $0.04.
Then, all computations will use this value and will be incorrect.
This fix applies the real quantity so `base` will have the correct
value:
```
base = currency.round(price_unit * quantity)
= currency.round(0.035 * 1000)
= 35
```
OPW-2472192
closesodoo/odoo#70269
X-original-commit: 77b7a23c3c759b33e26bf91faf14a10f02449a91
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <adwid@users.noreply.github.com>
Adrien Widart