The commit cfbfaf38be283e68c5a923ff2aafd1293135c4f1 remove the views and
menus related to mrp.message. This commit complete it by removing the
model, all the related fields and the access rules
Moves UoM models, test and data to a new addon in
order to be able to use uom without product.
A simple example is be to be able to use UoM for
timesheets.
This commit only move code, and adapt xml ids
without chaging any feature or functionnal
behavior.
Note: 'product' module now depends on new
'uom' module.
This removes the procurement.order model. To fufill their needs SO, PO, MO and
stock moves now call the _run method of the relevant procurement.group.
This mecanism is now only used for stockable product, tasks now uses their own
independent mecanism.
The _run method will check all the applicable rules and create directly the
needed model to fufill the need.
The modules stock, purchase, mrp, extends the _run method to implement their
specific strategy relevant for the rule type they define.
If an exception happens the message will be logged as a mail messsage on the
source model, for example, if a sales order cannot be fufilled the salesperson
will now see directly the reason.
OLD commit messages:
[WIP] procurement: removing procurement.order in stock, sale, purchase, sale_stock. WIP
fixup! [WIP] procurement: removing procurement.order in stock, sale, purchase, sale_stock. WIP
[IMP] Basic tests
[FIX] test not necessary anymore
[FIX] remove unnecessary print statement
[FIX] unnecessary test + why passing warehouse worked before?
[IMP] purchase: one move by purchase order line
[FIX] purchase: correct inventory tests and pass move_dest_ids among procurements
[FIX] because of bad cherry-pick merge
[IMP] make mrp pass by adding move_dest_ids there too
[IMP] tests of sale_mrp, no need for cancelpropagation then
[IMP] better to consistently use recordsets also for one2many
[FIX] purchase_requisition
[FIX] Exceptions should trigger errors, which should be caught in the tests
[FIX] sale_mrp: remove usage of procurement.order and use sale order name instead of sol
[FIX] stock_dropshipping: add sale_line_id on purchase_line_id
[FIX] Remove pdb
[IMP] add stock_dropshipping files
[IMP] stock: search carrier through sale line instead of procurement group
[IMP] add procrule test and preision needed when updating sol
[FIX] sale_order_dates + [IMP] procurement exceptions by scheduler
[FIX] No need to return task
[IMP] move file as name changes and add corrections
[FIX] Continue Run Schedulers wizard fix
[FIX] name issues of takss
[FIX] updating sale order line, but there is still a problem with the recompute
Rev[0] and [1] introduced a versioning on product's attachments through an
ECO creation or through a stat button on the product form view. These revisions
added some fields on the ir attachment model: a many2one and a boolean field
with a default value, and due to concerns over the migration of databases with a
lot of ir.attachment records (like ours), we adapted the implentation in rev[2][3].
We deemed reasonnable to remove the "active" field, as adding an active field not
in the “base” module of the model could impact other modules that did not took into
consideration this field. Also, this field only had a meaning when mrp_plm is
installed, and ir.attachment is used in various places in contexts across Odoo.
So, rev [2] and [3] changed the implementation of the versioning to only link
ir.attachment to an ECO record, forgetting the functionality of archiving directly
through the product form view stat button (without an ECO).
To introduce back this behavior, we chose to create a model to handle the mrp
attachments (named “mrp.document”) which inheritS ir.attachment. This way, we keep
the behavior of ir.attachment and we do not alter the original table.
This commit moved the priority field already set on ir.attachment to mrp.document
and adds the active field that will be used in mrp_plm to archive/versioning purposes.
linked commit:
[0] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/99138b6711760a7562cb9559663aef6a4208a48f
[1] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/4f88eb409776c1c4bc8f8d71d845b913c3604a54
[2] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/7e1c73cfc84cd23b6ba87dab713c3078de16568d
[3] https://github.com/odoo/enterprise/commit/ee1c4b29b8872dac9c525fcc6acdf80b5ef73131
PURPOSE
=======
A lot of customer are struggling with the fact that from the SO lines their users sometimes type too fast the product name and end up by creating or selling products that are simply mistakes.
Only the sale/manager, subscription/manager, purchase/manager, mrp/manager, warehouse manager, event/manager, pos/manager and invoicing person should have access rights to create and update products.
SPECIFICATION
=============
Remove create and write rights on product_product, product_template and product_price_history for stock users and move these rights to the subcited apps managers
Add a link in the general settings to access easily the default_user form view in order to modify the default access rights
The default_user manager rights declarations in all the applications have been move in a noupdate="1" definition to avoid the manual configuration overwrittings
This commit contains the core of the new MRP. It contains a whole refactoring
of the MRP application, with improved and new features, written in new API.
Among other here are the main manufacturing workflow improvements :
- Picking type not only for pickings but also for manufacturing orders
- Properties replaced by picking type
- BoM can only be produced with its routing (no other)
- Either produce without routing with only production orders, or produce with
routing
- By default, there is an order in the work orders (serially), but you can
override it to be able to work in parallel
- Time clocking on work orders and block time on work centers with reporting
on OEE, performance, losses, ...
- Real-time adaptation of timings on operations
- Lots/serial numbers can be inputted like in the pickings on manufacturing
orders. It is also possible to input them in the work orders.
- Material availability independent of production order state (possibility to
start production when only part of it is there)
- Work sheets on work orders
- Put messages on work orders to make your workers pay attention to something
- Full traceability link to see for each produced piece of stock, the
consumed pieces, ...
- Separate scrap object (a scrap is not done based on an original move
anymore)
- Separate unbuild system (if you want to unbuild into its original
components)
Thanks to all people that helped during this development, notably but not
limited to Chirag A Dodiya (cod@odoo.com), Gaurav Panchal (gan@odoo.com),
Jignesh Rathod (jir@odoo.com), Mansi Trivedi (mtr@odoo.com), Pariket Trivedi
(ptr@odoo.com).
Purpose:
Having the res_group defined in base and sales_team auto installed
with mail doens't make sense.
- Move the empty res_config class and the related view from
base_setup to sales_team (base_setup only contains the 'General Settings'
model and views
- Move the 'sale' related content from product to sale module (Access rights,
menuitems,...)
- Set sales_team at autoinstall False. The module is installed when needed by
crm or sale for example
- Set sales_team as a dependency of voip. (Access rights defined for configuration
purpose)
- Set sales_team ad a dependency of subscription (Access rights issue too)
[FIX] account: move some ir.model.access to sale module
[FIX] payment: Move some ir.rule to website_sale
[FIX] stock: move some ir.model.access rule to sale_stock
[FIX] project: Move some ir.model.access rules to crm_project_issue
[FIX] mrp: Move some ir.model.access rules to sale_mrp
[FIX] calendar: move some ir.model.access rules to crm
Rename xmlids accordingly. Example: 'base.group_sale_manager' becomes
sales_team.group_sale_manager.
[ADD] sales_team: See own documents => See only his sales team
Moved the "User: Own Leads Only", "User: All Leads" and "Manager" groups from sale and crm
into sales_team module. Add the record rules so that user can see only his Own Sales Team
if "See Own Leads" is sales right and can see all sales teams if he is having sales rights
of "See All Leads" or manager.
This branch need more testing instead of doing 10 fixes. A lot of issues are occuring
when installing modules in different orders.
This reverts commit fa6e415cdb.
Purpose:
Having the res_group defined in base and sales_team auto installed
with mail doens't make sense.
- Move the empty res_config class and the related view from
base_setup to sales_team (base_setup only contains the 'General Settings'
model and views
- Move the 'sale' related content from product to sale module (Access rights,
menuitems,...)
- Set sales_team at autoinstall False. The module is installed when needed by
crm or sale for example
- Set sales_team as a dependency of voip. (Access rights defined for configuration
purpose)
- Set sales_team ad a dependency of subscription (Access rights issue too)
Rename xmlids accordingly. Example: 'base.group_sale_manager' becomes
sales_team.group_sale_manager.
Coming from a bug in web_settings_dashboard. Invited user didn't have any rights
when created from the dashboard, which was leading to an error.
This bug leaded to a new discussion. Better to have basic employee having user
rights for all main applications. For bigger entreprises there is an admin that
will carefully remove extra rights, if necessary. The target is small businesses,
it makes sense that every way to create a user gives the same result.
In conclusion, each new user has a full access to the applications by default
How is it implemented ?
We added an inactive default user which original access right to the groups
'base.group_user' and 'base.group_partner_manager' in base. Each
application will extend the default user's access right by adding the maximal
access right for this application.
On user creation, we will use by default the 'group_id' field from the default
user. We will in the same time remove the ugly 'default_groups_ref' key which
was passed sometimes in the context for some fields in some views, and sometimes
nothing.
So, the user can modify the access rights for the default user, but he should be
aware that removing project user access rights for a default user will prevent
a *created on the fly in a task* user will not be able to access the task.
Yannick Tivisse