Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Enable “Multi-Step Routes” option in the inventory settings
- Create a storable product “P1” with BoM:
- Add any Component
- Go to “Miscellaneous” tab
- Create a new picking type and set in the “Operation” tab
- Create a Mo:
- Add the product “P1”
- Select the created BoM
- Go to “Miscellaneous” tab
Problem:
The operation type set on BoM does not update when selecting the BoM
on a manufacturing order
opw-3091436
closesodoo/odoo#108632
X-original-commit: cd561574d044d4799163ac90305c7914855ead50
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Djamel Touati (otd) <otd@odoo.com>
Before this commit, if a user changes a MO move qty to 0
and then tries to change the MO qty to produce, an error occurs.
The move with 0 qty is no longer cancelled or unlinked as this was not
the intenteded behavior.
Since the change production wizard no longer deletes cancelled moves
a test was updated accordingly.
closesodoo/odoo#108534
Taskid: 3082611
X-original-commit: 39abadb30dc8fab6b2a1ca24cb2916ab148fb5fa
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux (arm) <arm@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Ahmed Khalaf <ahkh@odoo.com>
Since 2515482d5a70, the duration expected of a workorder was always set
to the real duration at the validation of the workorder. This commit
ensure the duration expected is left unchanged even if the
date_planned_finished is updated.
closesodoo/odoo#108233
X-original-commit: 46e1ae4d9918de1aaf6b4a7565dba422b03fcb36
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Just change double the by single. This fixes various typos in error and
code comments.
closesodoo/odoo#107266
X-original-commit: 09dfedfc19c2bc34c2bb394dcc4bc609c5ac0107
Related: odoo/enterprise#34681
Signed-off-by: Thibault Delavallee (tde) <tde@openerp.com>
To reproduce the issue:
1. In Settings, enable UoM
2. Edit the UoM 'Dozens':
- Rounding: 1.0
3. Create two products P_finished, P_compo:
- P_finished:
- UoM: Dozens
4. Create a BoM:
- Product: P_finished
- Qty: 1 x Dozens
- Compo: 1 x P_compo
5. Create and confirm a MO for 1 x P_finished
6. Edit the MO:
- Set the producing qty to 1
- Set the 'to consume' quantity of P_compo to 1.23
Error: the consumed quantity of P_compo is still 1.0 (it should be
1.23). If the user tries to set the quantity to 1.56, the consumed
quantity will become 2 (also incorrect, should be 1.56)
The UoM used to round the new consumed quantity of the component is
incorrect. Considering its definition:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/0fdd35cfb5c7145b3a7a855956004e38de7c6e2a/addons/mrp/models/stock_move.py#L164-L170
the UoM of `unit_factor` is `UoM_sm / UoM_mo`. Therefore, in
`_update_quantity_done` (see diff), when we compute `new_qty`, we have
(in terms of UoM) `(UoM_mo - UoM_mo) * UoM_sm / UoM_mo`. So, the value
is already in the correct UoM (`UoM_sm`) and we just have to round it
based on that UoM
OPW-3016837
closesodoo/odoo#105059
X-original-commit: 90c245a3785a22c9fcbe7dcc2d06ae4205b4fdc9
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
Current behavior:
When updating the quantity of a MO after it has been confirmed, there
was no rounding applied on the move_raw.
Steps to reproduce:
- Create a new UoM A for units, with a ratio of 250 and a rounding
precision of 1
- Create a BoM for 250 quantity of product A, that use 1 quantity
of product B with UoM A.
- Create a MO for product A, and confirm it.
- Change the quantity to product by clicking on the quantity, enter any
value above 250 (e.g. 275)
- The quantity for product B should is not correct (should be 2)
opw-2964561
closesodoo/odoo#100523
X-original-commit: fdea8f8bbb865fb711d470053891545c8f627018
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Engels Robin (roen) <roen@odoo.com>
Since [1], a global time off is created in the demo data. Its date is
"today + 8 days". In `mrp`, the test `test_workcenter_timezone` tries to
plan some work orders for the next Monday:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/06e33207cdc6608e629a316fdddc35a15e08a3ad/addons/mrp/tests/test_order.py#L1882-L1883
So, if you install the demo data of `hr_holdiays` on Sunday and run the
test the day after, the global time off will prevent the slot
reservation by the work orders (and so it will lead to a failed test).
[1] e9bc5b9f36closesodoo/odoo#99665
X-original-commit: efa48d90839b7bd8b5638f352d7846339e360ac2
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
Steps to reproduce:
- Manufacturing app > Operations > Manufacturing orders > Create
- Set product to [FURN_7800] Desk Combination > Save > Confirm
- Click on scrap, choose any product > Done
- Edit the manufacturing order > set the quantity to 1/1 > Save
An error pops up: You cannot change the UoM for a stock move that has
been set to 'Done'.
This happens because the scrapped product has its destination location
wrongly set to the production location of the manufacturing order.
Because of this, it is considered as a component of the manufacturing
order. The scrap is also confirmed right after creation, so its state
is set to 'done'. Finally, when confirming a manufacturing order, all
of its component moves are also confirmed, hence the error.
This commit prevents the override of the scrap's destination location,
so that it is not wrongly considered a component anymore.
The commit also adds tests for the override method, added in
commit 0b247ab17ccc5be0c2058ef92ccf3502c97e0bb3
opw-2945182
closesodoo/odoo#99218
X-original-commit: 81820d4df5f23d9b6b2701e513ada89b528a865a
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
This revision is to make uniform the behavior of the `groups` attribute
on the Python model fields
and on the node in the view architecture.
In both cases, remove the node from the view completely.
Before this revision,
in a back-end view:
- In the Python model, if a field has the `groups` attribute set
and the user is not part of
the groups, the field is removed, completely, from the view.
- In the view architecture, if a node has the `groups` attribute set
and the user is not part of
the groups, the node is made invisible (not completely removed, just
made invisible).
in a front-end view:
- if a node has a "groups" or "t-groups" set and the user
is not part of the groups, the node is removed from the view.
So it's 2/3 cases removing nodes restricted to a group.
and 1/3 case making invisible nodes restricted to a group.
It's simpler to have a uniform behavior for the 3 cases,
simpler to understandard for developers.
In addition, this will help for the goal to cache back-end views.
It makes possible to convert views using the `groups_id` field
by moving the content of these views directly
in the view to which they add content which is suppose to be completely
removed when the user has not the according group.
By getting rid of the `groups_id` many2many field on `ir.ui.view`,
it makes possible to cache the view architecture without
requiring to use the groups in the cache key.
Currently, if we want to cache the view architecture,
it would be required to use the intersection of the user
groups with the `groups_id` groups of the view,
making it costly to compute the cache key,
therefore altering the performance point to cache the view
architectures.
closesodoo/odoo#95729
Related: odoo/enterprise#29592
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@odoo.com>
_split_productions wrongly compute duration expected for backorders.
Setting quantity on production adapt many things including workorders,
so adapt original production after copy_data for backorders.
closesodoo/odoo#96179
Task: 2884562
X-original-commit: 71b8531881ff6924762ec34db3f2ddf858383218
Signed-off-by: Tiffany Chang <tic@odoo.com>
With this revision, the expected duration is correctly set
when creating a production order with work orders without the need of
onchanges, through a form.
For instance, this allows an easier implementation to create a production
order with work orders through XMLRPC API calls,
as you will not need to manually set the expected duration value
or to call onchanges manually to set it.
For instance, without this change to remove the `default=60.0`,
the part added by this revision in the test `test_update_quantity_3`
would fail
```
2022-07-11 09:15:14,644 21 ERROR master odoo.addons.mrp.tests.test_order: FAIL: TestMrpOrder.test_update_quantity_3
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/odoo/src/odoo/master/addons/mrp/tests/test_order.py", line 347, in test_update_quantity_3
self.assertEqual(production.workorder_ids.duration_expected, 90)
AssertionError: 60.0 != 90
```
while it just does the same thing than the existing `test_update_quantity_3` test
but without the use of a form / onchanges.
Part-of: odoo/odoo#95733
This allows to create a production order record without
the need to call the onchanges to set the product, uom or bom
or to set them manually during the `create` call.
For instance, this makes easier to create production orders
using XMLRPC when you do not use multiple UOMs.
closesodoo/odoo#95544
Signed-off-by: Denis Ledoux (dle) <dle@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 some cases, replanning a work order does not change anything.
To reproduce the issue:
(Use demo data):
1. In Settings, enable "Work Orders"
2. Create two manufacturing orders (MO01, MO02) with 1 x [FURN_8522]
Table Top
3. Confirm MO01 and MO02
4. Set the same Scheduled Start Date (SSD) on the WO of each MO
- A warning should be displayed on the work order line because of
the conflict
5. Open the warning and click on "Replan"
Error: Nothing happens, the warning is still displayed and the scheduled
start date does not change.
For the warning symbol to be displayed, we check (through
`_compute_json_popover`) if two work orders are in conflict:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/8cb5aad6126e3f63ee4ef91115c8b4a6be571828/addons/mrp/models/mrp_workorder.py#L719-L722
So, we base this information on the `mrp.workorder`
However, the planning logic is based on another model:
`resource.calendar.leaves`. When planning a WO, we create a
`resource.calendar.leaves` and we link this slot to the WO thanks to the
field `leave_id`:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4870606b00a758e63713e6e82c0cba9b1e7dd4aa/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L1238-L1248
Therefore, when replanning a WO, we ensure that the new slot does not
overlap any existing slot in the same workcenter. But, here is the
issue: when writing the start date (step 4), we try to replan the WO of
the MO only if this MO is already planned:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/4870606b00a758e63713e6e82c0cba9b1e7dd4aa/addons/mrp/models/mrp_production.py#L723-L724
Wich is not the case in the above steps. So, we don't (re)plan anything
=> we don't create any slot.
As a result: the warnings are displayed, which is correct, but when
trying to replan one of the WO (step 5, viathanks to
`_plan_workorders`): There isn't any slot starting from WO's start date
(there isn't any slot at all!), so we can create a new slot -> the start
time of the WO does not change -> considering their start times, there
is still a conflict between both WOs.
Comment: if after the step 5, the user tries to replan the other WO, it
will work: the first replanning fails but a slot has still been created.
Therefore, when replanning the second WO, the newly-created slot will be
detected, a second slot will be created after the first one and the
start date of the second WO will be postpone (according to the second
slot).
(!) Note that nothing creates any slot if we directly define the start
time of the WO during the MO creation (step 2). So this use case will
fail too.
We should ensure a perfect coherence between both models
`resource.calendar.leaves` and `mrp.workorder`.
OPW-2887413
closesodoo/odoo#95087
X-original-commit: 9d4d8d24792933e53a4ca422ccedde8ddc93cdf4
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
When a MO is generated in order to supply another one, the smart buttons
"Source MO"/"Child MO" are still invisible.
To reproduce the issue:
1. In Settings, enable "Multi-Step Routes"
2. Enable MTO route
3. Edit the warehouse: 3-steps manufacturing
4. Create 3 stored products Super, Sub and Compo:
- Sub has two routes: MTO and Manufacture
5. Create two BoMs:
- For 1 x Super:
- 1 x Sub
- For 1 x Sub:
- 1 x Compo
6. Create and confirm a MO with 1 x Super
Error: On confirmation, a second MO is created to produce one Sub, which
is correct. However, neither the first MO nor the generated one has a
link with the other one (through the smart button "Source MO"/"Child
MO")
When confirming the MO, a SM is created to bring one Sub to the
pre-production location. Thanks to MTO route, this will generate another
SM that brings one Sub from post-production to stock location (this will
lead to the creation of the second MO). However, the other SM (1 x Sub
from Post to Stock) doesn't have the same procurement group. This is the
reason why it is not found by the `_compute` methods.
OPW-2730830
closesodoo/odoo#94334
X-original-commit: 81e5ce05f2f79eb19489f00fb867143189fb38df
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux (arm) <arm@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
Currently MRP only allows sequential scheduling of work orders.
This commit allows to specify the dependencies for work orders to be
scheduled in parallel or in a complex diagram.
By enabling the feature in the settings and at the bom level,
you can specify dependencies between operations:
on the operation form, select the operations on which the
current one depends.
The dependencies will be reflected in work orders during planning.
The workorders Gantt view has been adapted for you to visualize
and manipulate the dependencies.
Please note:
- work orders without predecessors will be started first
- they can all be done in parallel
- when all work orders of this step are finished, their successors
will start
- and so on, step by step
Also, with the feature activated at the bom level and no dependency,
the parallel scheme will be applied (all operations at first step).
Finally, without activation at the bom level, the dependencies will
be created in order to satisfy the current sequential model.
Task: 2691328
Part-of: odoo/odoo#87131
When updating the MO quantity, the reservation of the components doesn't
respect the reservation method of the operation type.
To reproduce the issue:
(Use demo data)
1. Edit the operation type "Manufacturing":
- Reservation Method: Manually
2. Create and confirm a MO for 1 x [FURN_8855] Drawer
- Note: the components are not reserved, as expected
3. Update the quantity to produce (2 x Drawer)
Error: The components are reserved
The new conditions are directly based on the conditions to reserve a SM
when confirming it:
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e55988fc4d8090f84157a026b7ecc7ea0dc146a7/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py#L1242-L1248
OPW-2822205
closesodoo/odoo#90728
X-original-commit: 76168d0f95203c97e60955c2df396b3bb81aa4f3
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <awt@odoo.com>
Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create a MO with work orders
- Confirm the MO
- Under the tab Work Orders > click on the button start multiple times quickly
Problem:
Several `mrp.workcentre.productivity` are created for the work order,
whereas normally the workorder can have only one timer started (without date_end).
Solution:
- If the workorder already has a timer running, return true to stop the process
- Add a constraint to block the user when he tries for example to create with an rpc call several `mrp.workcenter.productivity`
without an end date for the same workoder
opw-2802436
closesodoo/odoo#90094
X-original-commit: dd22195a75ec437e42424ee95ca9a41feeb48b0b
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Djamel Touati (otd) <otd@odoo.com>
Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create a manufacturing order to produce “Table”
- Confirm and plan the MO
- Start the work order
- Cancel the MO
Problem:
- The work order is cancelled, but the timers continue to run.
- "Block", "Unblock" and “Unplan" button should be hidden when MO is cancelled
opw-2817842
closesodoo/odoo#89442
X-original-commit: 5682015958d03f4a65969afe3fce9b9b05e5b505
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Djamel Touati (otd) <otd@odoo.com>
This task will:
- Clean the code (e.g. the production's moves are now created directly)
- Have the same behavior when creating object in the UI or directly in
backend
It's mainly on the `mrp.production` object and most of the computed
stored field are used as default value or act like an onchange on draft
production. Once the production order is validated, it's only modify
by direct write
Task-2709753
closesodoo/odoo#83576
Related: odoo/enterprise#24405
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
Steps to reproduce the bug:
- Create the workcenter_1:
- Time Efficiency: 100%
- Capacity: 2
- Setup Time: 1
- Cleanup Time: 1
- Create the workcenter_2:
- Time Efficiency: 100%
- Capacity: 4
- Setup Time: 10
- Cleanup Time: 5
- Alternative Work centers: workcenter_1
- Create a storable product “P1” with BOM:
- Add any product as component
- Add operation:
- Duration: 60
- Work center: Workcenter_2
- Create a MO:
- select “P1” as Product
- Qty to produce: 4
- Confirm and Plan
Problem:
The workcenter_1 is chosen while work_center_2 is faster it can manufacture the 4 units at the same time
while workcenter_1 must do two cycles
As the Time Efficiency = 100%, so:
Total duration = (Setup Time + Cleanup Time) + duration_by_unit * nb_cycle
Work_center_1 = (1 + 1) + 60 * 2 = 122
Work_center_2 = (10 + 5) + 60 = 75
The calculation is bad because we use the number of cycles necessary for the work_center defined in the BOM
in the calculation for the alternative work center
opw-2821749
closesodoo/odoo#88945
X-original-commit: deb87a6abf8b8ccc4328eaac21430eedc2536361
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Djamel Touati (otd) <otd@odoo.com>
Currently, when changing qty_producing on a MO, consumed number of each
component will always be updated. In this commit, we add a new boolean
field manual_consumption to bom.line. If checked, that line won't be
updated when changing qty_producing.
The same but invisible field manual_consumption is also added to each
line on MO. It will use the value on BOM as defualt value. When user
manually set the consued qty, it will be checked automatically. Also,
when user manually update the SML, the field on SM will also be set to
true.
Task-2687494
closesodoo/odoo#80118
Related: odoo/enterprise#25607
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin (whe) <whe@odoo.com>
Re-integrate code from 37681e9d2e24663691b4be022f34c29c7126d9f6
lost with f11fcf6bb4
allowing different quantities to be recorded on work orders
and generate back orders with correct quantities on back work orders
(cancelled if no remaining quantity).
closesodoo/odoo#84502
Task: 2751230
Related: odoo/enterprise#24624
Signed-off-by: Steve Van Essche <svs@odoo.com>
In 9f7e6d2bb6ae0a6b0257edf26a5aa069cd00d78e , when start a workorder, we
always suggest the qty to produce to be the full qty to produce on MO.
If the previous WO produced less than the full qty to produce on MO,
user won't aware of that when start the WO. We revert it in this committ
Task-2678388
closesodoo/odoo#83389
Related: odoo/enterprise#23961
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
There were some discrepencies when adding to/removing from WO Real
Duration:
- When adding time that is brings the total Duration over the expected
duration, the time should be split between the "productive" and
"performance" (i.e. reduced speed) times. This is already happening
when using start/pause buttons, so now it is consistent.
- Use 'id' instead of "Start Date" to determine which time_ids
to reduce/remove since adding a large enough "real duration" value
compared to previous time_id(s) could result in an earlier "Start
Date" for a newer time_id (i.e. results in which one is adjusted/
deleted = confusing). Using "End Date" was considered, but same
non-sequential issue can occur during time split from point above.
- Correctly determine if the "productivity" should be 'productive' or
not (i.e. 'performance') based on total WO duration (not duration
of newly added time_id)
Refinement of Part 4 of Task: 2667151
closesodoo/odoo#80319
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <arm@odoo.com>
There is 2 major issues with the production of multiple serials number
- Performance issue
- Duplicated code with classic backorder mechanism
The performance issues exist since backorders were create one by one
and `stock.move` and `stock.move.line` are always recomputed. They
are not created in batch neither.
_generate_backorders is removed and replace by _split_productions. The
functionality are the same. Technicaly it does the maximum in batch,
first it creates all the `mrp.production` then all the `stock.move`
and finaly, it splits the existing `stock.move.line` among the new
`stock.move`
It means that the reservation is not recompute anymore during a
backorder process and will remain the same than the splitted production
order.
Performance metrics (10 components):
| 2 | 10 100 1000
before | 0.47s | 2.84s | 32.25s | 580.53s
-----------------------------------------------
after | 0.13s | 0.36s | 2.60s | 35.17s
task 2633369
Part-of: odoo/odoo#77254
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
Previously, when underconsumption occured, we split the move (in
post_inventory). And if backorder, the moves not done would be linked to
the new backorder MO (when backorder MO is created).
After 8883c06ada, we create backorder MOs
before _post_inventory, making it so the moves not done will not be
linked to the backorder MOs and reserved qtys are not released.
To fix, we set cancel_backorder to be true to cancel all the leftover
moves and release the reserved qty.
Task-2697611
closesodoo/odoo#80446
X-original-commit: cffb2b455d73f64d96f91b9e0301c346989eae63
Signed-off-by: Tiffany Chang <tic@odoo.com>
"Material Availability" vs "Component Availability" label means
the same thing but it shouldn't.
- Rename these and add a help string for both fields.
- Change decoration to be green if the MO Readiness is
'ready'.
- The logic of `_compute_*_availability` doesn't take in account the
'ready' `(reservation_)state` to distinct clearly both fields
(`(reservation)_state` vs `*_availability`)
task-2668922
closesodoo/odoo#79033
X-original-commit: acc385137a6a59f3632d91a7fcabd5ab42e8bc7f
Signed-off-by: Tiffany Chang <tic@odoo.com>
Improve 'Component Availability' and 'Product Availability':
Add these fields in form and tree view (the performance issues
is addressed in next commits and these fields will be load lazily)
task-2579011
Part-of: odoo/odoo#77092
Component move with same product are not merge at confirmation as it
could be multiple different production steps.
opw-2583848
closesodoo/odoo#76401
X-original-commit: 390fce62462962e9a0131a082317e2e60e34041a
Related: odoo/enterprise#20801
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Issue: In work centers with a capacity different than 1, the expected
duration was wrongly computed
Steps to reproduce :
1) Install Manufacture, enable Work Centers in Settings
2) Create a Work Center, Capacity = 2
3) Create a Product, with Manufacture as route
4) Create a Bill of Material :
Add any component
Add a operation line :
Work Center = created at 2)
Duration Computation = based on tracked time last 1 WO
5) Create a Manufacturing Order for the product 3), confirm
6) Set the real duration to 00:10, mark as done
7) Check the BoM Structure & Cost of the BoM 4)
-> Operations is 00:20
Why is that a bug:
To compute the expected duration, in mrp_workorder.py L691 we already
take into consideration the capacity of the work center.
When computing the time_cycle, we must give a time_cycle for 1 product
made with capacity 1, so we must first normalize the qty_produced fetch
from the DB to make like if we only produced the quantity once but in
the same amount of time
Side-Note: This also solves an issue with the Duration Computation based
on tracked time. The `limit` keyword was applied after the `group by`
so we effectively grouped all the operation_ids together, summing
their quantities and then limiting on the different operation_ids
opw-2562983
closesodoo/odoo#75557
X-original-commit: c78a25f92716bd6014de381c34f3bc268d1528ae
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Nathan Marotte <nmarotte@users.noreply.github.com>
Missed the case of copying a cancelled MO needing its cancelled
move_finished_ids to still be copied during commit:
79efbd0e4707892041ee7c58c81c1d7edd033edd
Steps to reproduce:
Step 1: make a MO and cancel it
Step 2: duplicate the MO and try to mark as done
Expected result: qty is produced
Actual result: Validation Error about quantity to produce must be
positive (due to no move_finished_ids)
Follow up to task: 2618962
closesodoo/odoo#75569
X-original-commit: 56e7d4acc59a802c7613c1184858bda5bfb26748
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiffany Chang <tic@odoo.com>
Steps to reproduce:
Step 1: make a MO and create less than the quantity to produce
Step 2: Mark As Done (with no backorder)
Step 3: duplicate the MO and try to change the quantity to produce
Expected result: qty to produce changes as expected
Actual result: server error
Issue is due to the copied MO's `move_finished_ids` including a copy
of the cancelled finished move (i.e. the qty not backordered) so there
were 2 `move_finished_ids` for the product to produce. This resulted in
an access error since the onchange to update the `move_finished_ids`
only expects 1 move for the product to produce and results in a
singleton error.
Note we copy cancelled move_raw_ids because otherwise we wouldn't be
able to duplicate cancelled MOs without losing all of its components.
Issue 2 of Task: 2618962
closesodoo/odoo#75073
X-original-commit: 456c337534427db1296030b004ae061b47d8db79
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiffany Chang <tic@odoo.com>
Previous fix commit 5e34a02 was too aggressive in when it would delete
the move_finished_ids. In certain use cases it would result in no
move_finished_ids and a corrupted MO:
Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a new MO
2. Save the MO (do NOT confirm)
3. Update the qty to product_qty (qty to produce)
4. Confirm + Mark As Done
End result: "qty to produce must be positive" error whenever MO was
attempted to be completed and MO can never be completed.
To fix this, we split out when the move_finish_ids. They should all
be deleted ONLY when the product to produce is changed. Unfortunately to
cover all cases, we must always wipe the moves whenever the product is
changed (e.g. when changing the product twice with the original product
being the final saved value, we have no way of knowing to keep the
original move_finished_ids due to onchange only being able to check
against the last saved value, not last selected value).
Additional test + test update done to support preventing this
catastrophe in the future.
Part of Task: 2618962
closesodoo/odoo#74859
X-original-commit: fa468782f4a52334fd055fb5cd11e2c62ddd6f9d
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiffany Chang <ticodoo@users.noreply.github.com>
Step to reproduce :
- Create a Manufacturing Order for several pieces of a product with a
work center routing
- Open the Work Order which has been created
- The Manufacturing Order is set to 'to close', instead of 'in progess'
Cause of the issue
The state of the MO was never computed based on WO status.
Solution
The state of a MO is set to 'to close' when a WO is set as 'done'
or 'cancel'
opw-2584446
closesodoo/odoo#74411
X-original-commit: c237c9c3214b58d303a8597df2c836872c5e522c
Signed-off-by: Simon Goffin (sig) <sig@openerp.com>
Signed-off-by: guva-odoo <guva-odoo@users.noreply.github.com>
Previous specification of making MOs unlocked by default was confusing
for users and made it too easy to accidentally change the qty to consume
rather than the consumed amount. This fix makes it so MOs are now locked
by default and will be unlocked/locked (including existing draft /
confirmed / in progress MOs) automatically when setting is changed.
Previous setting (Lock Quantities To Consume) has been repurposed for
this. When setting is active, no lock/unlock button will be visible to
match the updated setting description (i.e. non-done MOs can
never be locked).
Task: 2518523
ENT PR (only fixes test): odoo/enterprise#19732
Upgrade PR: odoo/upgrade#2655
Step to follow
- Create a product with 2 variants and set route to Manufacture
- Create a BOM for the product
- Create an MO for one of the variants
- Save (in Draft State)
- Edit
- Change to the other variant
- Confirm
- Finish the MO Order
- Look at product moves on MO
Cause of the issue
In MrpProduction._onchange_move_finished method, self.move_finished_ids
was not empty before being assign.
Solution
Removed the records from self.move_finished_ids before
assign another one to it.
opw-2572644
closesodoo/odoo#73563
X-original-commit: 5e34a02c3d897d888bf52b1977c25047326b76a8
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: guva-odoo <guva-odoo@users.noreply.github.com>
- The work order state changes based on the availability of the components
- So if all BOM components are available the state of the first WO is set to ready
- The color of ready in the WO tree editable view will stay blue as long as done reserves the green color
- If one or multiple components are not available, the state of the first WO is set to waiting
- The color of waiting in the WO tree editable view is set to orange
By default to launch takes workorder_ready_count so it counts only ready WOs
- The user can always process the WO without restrictions even if the WO state is waiting
Task-2426773
closesodoo/odoo#71250
Related: odoo/enterprise#18523
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: nouraellm <nea@odoo.com>
The problem arises when a user creates a backorder for a MO after
registering overconsumption of some components through the simplified view.
The quantities of the components of the new backordered MO are then wrong.
Components that were over consumed in the first MO will have smaller
quantities in the new MO, the difference being the amount over consumed.
This problem does not appear in the case of the Tablet View where a proper
recalculation of quantities is done.
closesodoo/odoo#64911
Signed-off-by: Arnold Moyaux <amoyaux@users.noreply.github.com>
When planning a Manufacturing Order, if an operation takes place in work
center with a different time zone, the computed date may be incorrect
(the start date may be outside the working hours)
To reproduce the error:
(Use demo data. Current timezone: Europe/Brussels)
1. In Settings, enable "Work Orders"
2. Open an existing Work Center
3. Click on "Standard 40 hours/week"
4. Set Timezone to "Asia/Bangkok"
- Note that all slots are between 8:00-12:00 and 13:00-17:00
5. Create two storable products P_compo and P_finished
6. Create a Bill of Materials BM:
- Product: P_finished
- BoM Type: Manufacture this product
- Components: 1 x P_compo
- Operations: 3 x Operation with existing work centers
7. Create a Manufacturing Order:
- Bill of Material: BM
- Quantity: 100
8. Save, Confirm, Plan
Error: (it depends on the time the test is done) The 'Scheduled Start
Date' of the second operation is incorrect. Adding the time zone
difference gives a time that is outside the work center's timetable
(i.e., outside 8:00-12:00 and 13:00-17:00).
The computations do not consider the time zone of the work center.
OPW-2393330
closesodoo/odoo#71332
X-original-commit: dab24e497f095d0c7857f07d037e9cb16749e2ea
Related: odoo/enterprise#18572
Signed-off-by: William Henrotin <Whenrow@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <adwid@users.noreply.github.com>
In a Manufacturing Order, the components' quantities are rounded using
the rounding precision of the produced product's UoM. This leads to
incorrect values.
To reproduce the error:
1. In Settings, enable "Units of Measure"
2. In UoM, edit Units:
- Rounding Precision: 1
3. Create two products P_finished and P_compo
- P_compo's Product Type: Consumable
- P_compo's UoM: L
- P_finished's UoM: Units
4. Create a Bill of Materials
- Product: P_finished
- 1 Component:
- Product: P_compo
- Quantity: 0.2
- UoM: L
5. Create a Manufacturing Order:
- Product: P_finished
6. Confirm, Mark as Done
Error: Qty to consumes became 0 and consumed qty is 0. Both values
should be 0.2L, but they have been rounded using the rounding precision
of Units
OPW-2529462
closesodoo/odoo#71293
X-original-commit: aff3a2e06801dfb7a58df5180fb4ab5487b27f02
Signed-off-by: Steve Van Essche <svs-odoo@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Adrien Widart <adwid@users.noreply.github.com>
Touati Djamel (otd)