To reproduce, product A in AVCO:
- Buy 2 product A at 1.00 $
- Buy 1 product A at 1.01 $
- Sell 3 product A.
- The stock valuation won't be correct: still remain 0.01 in
stock without quantity and the svl related to the sell
have a value of 3.00 (instead of 3.01)
To fix:
In case of AVCO, add the rounding error value to the out
stock move layer.
closesodoo/odoo#65117
X-original-commit: f6b019fcfdd35a693e8af43ae38d10e31e96284a
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
- Activate Anglo-Saxon accounting
- Set a foreign currency rate to 2.0
- Create a product A:
Inventory Valuation: 'Automated'
Costing Method: 'Standard Price'
Cost: 10.0
Public Price: 100.0
- Create an invoice in foreign currency
- Add 1 unit of A => the total amount is 200.0
- Confirm the invoice
The Amount Due is 100.0 instead of 200.0.
This happens because the Anglo-Saxon lines have the company currency,
while the other lines have the foreign currency. Because of this, the
`_compute_amount` method considers the move as multi-currency to compute
the various amount. However, the Anglo-Saxon lines should be neglected.
This happens from 14.0 because all lines have a currency. In previous
versions, lines in the company currency didn't have the `currency_id`
set.
opw-2390107
closesodoo/odoo#62657
X-original-commit: 9e1aec7873a935b287b4b3c5dbc2688acee5422a
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Martinelli (nim) <nim@odoo.com>
The validation of a stock move without quantity done create an empty
stock valuation layer. This is not a wanted behavior as :
1. it create record without useful information (0 value, 0 remaining
qty, 0 remaining value)
2. The landed cost value is set on a wrong layer in case of complete
backorder.
This commit bypass the valuation process on a move if it is validated
without any quantity.
opw : 2328258
closesodoo/odoo#58776
X-original-commit: 01e21735dbf3ac2fe975323cee2f4bb93e4ca747
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Martinelli (nim) <nim@odoo.com>
Add an easy way to not post the entries in the future when calling
post() on it, but rather set it to be auto-posted at accounting date.
This is useful when we are creating a lot of entries in batch and some
might be in the future, some in the past, and we don't want to separate
that in two batch every time. (asset, accrual, transfer,... )
l10n runbot builds are all failing when running at least one test depending of AccountTestCommon because it:
- doesn't create a sandboxed testing environnement to manage the multi-currency, multi-company, the default company's currency, the exchange rates...
- doesn't setup a testing user then all tests are done using the superuser.
- doesn't provide a fully setup chart of accounts: exchange difference journal is not set, accounts have bad types, etc...
- is run sometimes at-install.
--task: 2301180
This restricts the attributes of a BaseModel instance to `env`, `_ids`
and `_prefetch_ids`. This way, one can only assign fields on a record;
other assignments are programming errors.
This also reduces the memory footprint of records from 168 to 64 bytes
(-62%), and makes their instanciation faster.
closesodoo/odoo#51075
Related: odoo/enterprise#10529
Signed-off-by: Raphael Collet (rco) <rco@openerp.com>
Add a way to create a munual stock valuation layer, create
a stock valuation layers implies :
- Change the stardard price with the new valuation by product unit in case of AVCO.
- Create a manual stock valuation layer with the added value.
- Update the remaining value of current valuation layer.
- If the Inventory Valuation of the product category is automated, create
related account move.
task-2123752
Task 2146469
Rework the name computation:
* It doesn't use ir.sequence anymore
* It is an editable computed field
* Add a renaming tool
This allows the user to tweak the sequences more easily than having to
get through the ir.sequence settings.
The sequence depends on a parameter of the journal: continuous, montly
and yearly restart of the sequence. Everytime a new period is started,
try to make a pattern form another period.
The incrementing is done by taking the previous name, ordered
lexicographically, splitting it by taking the digits at the end, adding
1 and re contstruct with the prefix.
** This means there could be cases where the prefix has a big importance
on the next number. For instance, if you have
INVOICE/2019/0001
INVOICE/2019/0002
and then rename the last one to INV/2019/0002, don't expect the next
number to be INV/2019/0003. It will be INVOICE/2019/0002 (again) because
the highest number was INVOICE/2019/0001.
You will then end up with
INVOICE/2019/0001
INV/2019/0002
INVOICE/2019/0002
closesodoo/odoo#41485
Related: odoo/enterprise#7189
Signed-off-by: Quentin De Paoli (qdp) <qdp@openerp.com>
This commit will fixed the error when product has some stock quants
and product category with 'Automated' valuation method, is set to that product.
==============================
Steps to product the above mentioned error:
1. Create product with any category which has 'Manual' valuation method.
2. Update 'On Hand' quantity for the same product.
3. Create product category with valuation method set to 'Automated'.
4. Now set the above product category to the same product which you created in step 1.
5. And Click on the save button.
==============================
Also edit the test case.
closesodoo/odoo#43755
Task: 2155804
X-original-commit: c62dea6a7ce6b63f708831707811e922cd6bddd0
Signed-off-by: Simon Lejeune (sle) <sle@openerp.com>
Running the vacuum in avco indeed fixed the estimated value on the
delivery but it did not update the standard price afterwards, making it
possible to have an inconsistent standard price with the actual value in
stock, as described in [0] and in the task [1].
A test was added (and validated) in the layers test file and an two old
one were fixed. test_average_perpetual_2 displayed also a different
missing bit: the vacuum should run when the user unlock and increments a
receipt.
[0] https://github.com/odoo/odoo/pull/41669
[1] 2154638
closesodoo/odoo#42292
X-original-commit: 6e4c9b8219db0c94c29f5ee145998e6f1597bb55
Signed-off-by: Simon Lejeune (sle) <sle@openerp.com>
Before
======
If a product is FIFO, the standard price is the unit cost of the last released.
```
+ 1 product @ 10€
+ 1 product @ 15€
- 1 product
-> Actual standard price is 10€
```
After
=====
If a product is FIFO, the standard price of the ``product.product`` is the
unit cost of the next product which will be released
```
+ 1 product @ 10€
+ 1 product @ 15€
- 1 product
-> Actual standard price is 15€
```
Task #2038418
When returning a delivery where the value was taken from different
receipt, the last receipt's unit cost was wrongly used when returning
the delivery.
Now we use the `unit_cost` of the delivery when returning it.
task-2150889
closesodoo/odoo#41564
X-original-commit: 468ab4f23c8212e1aba21197b3f83afe741b3d9e
Signed-off-by: Simon Lejeune (sle) <sle@openerp.com>
Overwrite the method ``write`` of the model ``product.product``.
When we write on ``standard_price``, if
- the context key ``disable_auto_svl`` is not set
- the ``cost_method`` is not "fifo"
We automatically compute ``stock.valuation.layer``
(before we needed to manually call ``_change_standard_price``)
Task #2031422closesodoo/odoo#41265
Signed-off-by: Simon Lejeune (sle) <sle@openerp.com>
There is no unique constraint on the properties to avoid having two
properties for the same field, company and res_id.
Having two properties for the same field, company and res_id, leads to
inconsistencies through the code, as reading a company-dependent field
nondeterministically returns one of the available property value.
So now, before creating a property, we have to check that there is not
already a value for the field, company and res_id and write or create
depending on if it is already exists.
The properties of specific records already satisfy the constraint thanks
to the implementation of company-dependent fields that use the method
`set_multi`. We added a method `set_default` to set generic properties,
and its implementation does the right thing. It also simplifies the
code to set such properties, by the way.
closesodoo/odoo#40473
Signed-off-by: Xavier Morel (xmo) <xmo@odoo.com>
Co-authored-by: Raphael Collet <rco@odoo.com>
`action_done`on pickings should be a private method,
and called only trough the picking validation process.
task-1938108
closesodoo/odoo#39174
Signed-off-by: Simon Lejeune (sle) <sle@openerp.com>
All transit locations were set as active by default, confusing some users.
There are now set as active only when when a ressuply route is created
between some warehouses
TaskID: 1873106
This branch is the combination of several optimizations in the ORM:
* store field values once in the cache: the cache reflects more
faithfully the database, only fields that explicitly depend on the
context have an extra indirection in the cache;
* delay recomputations by default: use method `recompute` to explicitly
flush out pending recomputations;
* delay updates in method `write`: updates are stored in a data
structure that can be flushed efficiently to the database with method
`flush` (which also flush out recomputations);
* make method `modified` take advantage of inverse fields to inverse
dependencies;
* filter records by evaluating a domain on records in Python;
* a computed field with `readonly=False` behaves like a normal field
with an onchange method;
* computed fields are computed in superuser mode by default.
Work done by Toufik Ben Jaa, Raphael Collet, Denis Ledoux and Fabien
Pinckaers.
closesodoo/odoo#35659
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux <beledouxdenis@users.noreply.github.com>
Add a many2one on the landed cost to the vendor bill. Allow to create a
landed cost from a vendor bill if the product is a service. It will use
the price_subtotal of the account move line. Add a is_landed_costs_line
to separate products of landed costs on the account move line. It's a
checkbox. Ticking the checkbox will change the account of the account
move if the company is in anglo saxon accounting.
Tweak the accounts used by the landed costs so that everything is well
balanced (see the added tests). Auto reconcile AML when possible.
task-59011
Purpose
=======
Fields `customer` and `supplier` on `res.partner`
are mostly used in domains of many2x fields.
Those domains can confuse end users because they don't
see the partner they are looking for; and it's not obvious why.
Some identified problems:
1. It can lead to duplicated partners: the user does not find
the partner, so he creates a new one.
2. The user imports supplier contacts in the Contacts app, so they
don't get the `supplier` flag. Then the user wants to make a purchase order,
and cannot find the new suppliers in the list
3. A user removes the customer flag on a prospect, because they don't think
it's a customer yet - except now they can't make a quote for that customer...
Specification
=============
Remove the two mentioned fields.
Since fields `customer` and `supplier` have been removed, all partners
are now shown in many2one dropdowns.
But in some cases, not all partners are relevant or some are more likely
to be relevant than others. e.g. when creating a PO, top suppliers have a
higher priority than other partners.
So, adapt the places where those fields were used with the new mechanism to
display the searched the partners, according to the number purchase/sales
orders they made.
TaskID: 2031147
Co-authored-by: Yannick Tivisse <yti@odoo.com>
This commit merges the following models
* account.invoice and account.move
* account.invoice.line and account.move.line
* account.voucher and account.move
* account.voucher.line and account.move.line
It was the opportunity for a big cleanup of the code, so it also restructures the whole account module, its different models/fields, the tests etc. for a better world and a better code readability.
==== Rationale ====
The rationale of this huge change is that we want journal entries / invoices to be easily edited, and changes reflected in the other model. It's a HUGE feature and very strategic for the fiduciary companies. For example, changing the account of a journal entry needs to be automatically reflected on the related invoice.
The same reasoning applies to sale/purchase vouchers.
==== Changes made in features =====
When creating an invoice, you are now creating a journal entry directly.
--> The object account.invoice no longer exists.
In the same fashion when creating an invoice line, you're now adding journal items directly in the journal entry representing the invoice. If this invoice line has some tax, it may create additional journal items as well.
--> The models account.invoice.line & account.invoice.tax no longer exist
Identically, when creating a sale/purchase receipt with its lines, you are now creating a journal entry directly and there's no more usability difference between encoding a receipt or an invoice.
--> The object account.voucher no longer exists.
--> The object account.voucher.line no longer exists.
--> The whole account_voucher module no longer exists.
Positive side-effects coming from these changes are
* draft invoices/bills/sale or purchase receipts now create a draft accounting entry. Validate these objects now simply post its journal entry. That means that draft invoices/bills/sale or purchase receipt can straightforwardly be included in reporting or budgets.
* opening a journal entry in form view will now always open the correct view: if it's a sale/purchase journal entry we will have a customer invoice/vendor bill view or a sale/purchase receipt view, whatever the menu we're coming from.
* code & business logic simplification. It is also condensed in a single place instead of being partially duplicated on invoices, vouchers and journal entries.
There should be no feature loss, except the one allowing to group multiple journal items together based on the same product during the invoice validation.
==== Changes made in models =====
* account.invoice: model removed. Instead, now use account.move with following mapping
field (account.invoice) field (account.move)
----------------------- --------------------
name invoice_payment_ref
number name
reference ref
comment narration
user_id invoice_user_id
amount_ total_company_signed amount_total_signed
residual amount_residual
state state + invoice_payment_state /!\ selection changed
date_invoice invoice_date
date_due invoice_date_due
sent invoice_sent
origin invoice_origin
payment_term_id invoice_payment_term_id
partner_bank_id invoice_partner_bank_id
incoterm_id invoice_incoterm_id
vendor_bill_id invoice_vendor_bill_id
source_email invoice_source_email
vendor_display_name invoice_vendor_display_name
invoice_icon invoice_vendor_icon
cash_rounding_id invoice_cash_rounding_id
sequence_number_next invoice_sequence_number_next
sequence_number_next_prefix invoice_sequence_number_next_prefix
'invoices' subset of account.move can be accessed by using the selection field 'type' or one of the many helpers like is_invoice()
* account.move: now has a valid state 'cancel' that has to be excluded from all business logic
* account.move: field 'amount' renamed into 'amount_total'
* account.move: field 'reverse_entry_id' renamed into 'reversed_entry_id'
* account.move.line: now has a field 'display_type' that has to be excluded from all business logic, in order to support invoice layouting
* account.invoice.line: model removed. Instead, now use account.move.line with following mapping
field (account.invoice.line) field (account.move.line)
---------------------------- -------------------------
invoice_id move_id
uom_id product_uom_id
invoice_line_tax_ids tax_ids
account_analytic_id analytic_account_id
'invoice lines' subset of all account.move.line from a journal entry can be accessed by using the boolean field 'exclude_from_invoice_tab'
* account.invoice.tax: model removed. Instead, now use account.move.line with following mapping
field (account.invoice.tax) field (account.move.line)
--------------------------- -------------------------
invoice_id move_id
account_analytic_id analytic_account_id
amount price_unit
base tax_base_amount
'tax lines' subset of all account.move.line from a journal entry can be accessed by using the relational field 'tax_line_id'
* account.invoice.confirm: model removed. Instead, now use the 'post()' function of account.move
* account.invoice.refund: model removed. Instead, now use account.move.reversal to reverse the entries with the same options as we had for invoices
* account.voucher: model removed. Instead, now use account.move of type in ['out_receipt', 'in_receipt]
* account.voucher.line: model removed. Instead, now use account.move.line
==== Changes made in functions ====
* on account.move, method _run_post_draft_to_post() renamed into _autopost_draft_entries()
* on account.move, method action_account_invoice_payment() renamed into action_invoice_register_payment()
* on account.move, method action_invoice_reconcile_to_check() renamed into action_open_matching_suspense_moves()
* on account.move, method _get_domain_edition_mode_available() renamed into _get_domain_matching_supsense_moves()
* on account.move, method _get_intrastat_country_id() renamed into _get_invoice_intrastat_country_id()
* on account.move.line, method _get_domain_for_edition_mode() renamed into _get_suspense_moves_domain()
* in account.bank.statement, contextual key 'edition_mode' renamed into 'suspense_moves_mode'
Was task 1917430
The layer created to handle the valuation and costing change share the
same code but they should not share the same description.
closesodoo/odoo#34952
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
The examples are implemented at TestStockValuationChangeCostMethod.
The idea is that we want to keep some trace of cost method change and
keep the consistency of the data (eg what about a fifo stack when
changing to standard, that sort of things). We thus implement a simple
logic: when changing the cost method, empty the current valued stock
with the old cost method and refill the stock with the new one.
Some cost method changes are neutral accounting wise, others not.
The rationale is that cost method changes are a hard configuration changes
and databases where users changed cost method are undebuggable because
it is not possible to understand the resulting accounting entries.
The change of valuation (auto to manual and conversely) is not well
defined at the moment.
task-1875873
The new code was sitting next to the old one, now that everything is
adapted (minus the cost method changes), we can remove the old one.
We also adapt the valuation wizard to use the stock valuation layer
action, now that the others are removed.
task-1875873
We standardize the dropshipping by handling it as it was an receipt
directly followed by an out.
We also follow the same logic whatever the cost method, ie we don't run
fifo or update the AVCO.
task-1875873
Now that the vacuum is implemented and ran in AVCO, we can unskip the
old avco negative tests and implement new ones in
test_stockvaluationlayer to explain why we wanted to run the vacuum in
AVCO (see test_negative_1).
task-1875873
Re-implement _run_fifo_vacuum on the product this time with
float_is_zero and without remaining_value.
Trigger the vacuum at each receipt. Before it was done in the scheduler
each night, meaning the valuation on the move was not really
understandable nor consistent (the estimated value could be fixed by
some other move than the next receipt).
task-1875873
We don't implement fifo negative handling in this commit.
We make sure we run fifo in average mode to get a proper remaining_qty
field.
`_run_fifo` is now a method on product (since it could be user outside
of a stock move context). It is really similar to its ancestor on the
stock move, with a few float_is_zero and compare more and a missing
remaing_value.
We move the valuation sanity check into a proper helper,
_sanity_check_for_valuation.
We complete the _create_correction_svl method with accounting entries.
task-1875873
One of the goal of this refactoring is also to run the vacuum when the
cost method is AVCO. This will be used allow already out landed cost
on AVCO and also to have a consistent value when going into negative.
We update `_prepare_in_svl_vals` to set the remaining_qty field that
will be used when fifo is implemented. On the stock move, we create the
layer in with the real price unit of the move and adapt
product_price_update_before_done. This method will now compute the AVCO
according to the quantity valued in stock (quantity_svl) instead of all
the quantities in stock (qty_available), which was wrong (qty_available
could contain consigned quants).
We also make sure to recompute the avco when editing a done move.
We don't implement yet the negative handling as we'll need fifo for
that.
task-1875873
Valuation of standard move: We introduce _create_in_svl and
_create_out_svl and call these method in _action_done only on the
standard move, the other valuation methods still use the old code. We
hijack _account_entry_move to create journal entries anyway for the
valuation layer with a minimal diff. Helpers for the valuation layers
creation are added on the product because we will need to create similar
layer without stock move later on when we'll implement changes of cost
method. We also make a first implementation of the edition in the past
to make some tests pass, it will be completed with other cost method
implementation
Change of standard price: Before this commit, the wizard to change the
standard price was only displayed in perpetual, because it was used to
create accountign entries. We also use this wizard in manual now,
because we want to create a stock valuation layer. Fortunetaly, the
accounting fields of this wizard are not required if the product has a
manual valuation. And the new method is private.
We adapt the existing tests as well as we can and include the start of a
new battery of tests: test_stockvaluationlayer.py
task-1875873
This table tracked standard price changes.
It was used to compute the valuation at date in AVCO and standard
through `get_history_price`.
The next commits will introduce the stock valuation layers, separating
the valuation from the stock move. As a valuation layer will be created
when a standard price is updated on the product or when a stock move
impacts the valuation, the information from this table will be
duplicated.
We don't plan to adapt `get_history_price` to work with the valuation
layer since the valuation report at date and today will be the same: a
grouped list on the valuation layers with eventually a domain on the
date.
task-1875873
Rémy Voet (ryv)