-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 691
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[12.0] [ADD] product_pack #498
Conversation
d4f158c
to
0016676
Compare
@zaoral , I have a question in this part of the code in the original module: I would like you could help me. I'm extracting the redefinition of this method (_compute_quantities_dict) to a new module as commented here #498 (comment):
|
I think that one of the most confusing parts of the module is that dropdown that modifies the pack behavior, possibly because it's a single field modifying many things, and we could make it more simple if we remove it and replace it with several fields:
What do you think about it? Also another question: do any of these fields have any meaning without the |
The idea is to reuse them on a future |
Hi all.
to cover this extra feature, I propose to make a PR against your branch, and include the following changes :
@ernestotejeda, all, what about this proposal ? I thought to add an extra module that depend on this module, but the function should be in this module, to make all the other ones working. I can work on that point very quickly, and propose a PR this week. Thanks for your comments ! |
Hi, @legalsylvain thanks for your interest and your feature is interesting, although maybe it's better to include it in a new module for having that isolated. It can be included here the function you need though, returning by default the About Now I'm wondering if we should create a repository OCA/pack for this or spread them like now. |
Hi @pedrobaeza : Thanks for your quick reply !
That's is the "must have" point for me, indeed.
Having one module :
Maybe we should make one module, if most of the people think it could be interesting to have this option, and make two module if it's very specific case ?
for the time being :
Indeed, it maybe deserves a specific repository. 👍 Do you think it's relevant to make this change for 12.0, or to wait the super fast, super easy and super simple 13.0 coming soon version ? |
@ernestotejeda please add test and let's merge this. @zaoral @jjscarafia do we have your bless? https://youtu.be/bk_02-9OBmM We cannot invest hundred hours in this module and we will maintain it for sure 😄 |
please don't, before I added the function I'll do this stuff in a few moment. |
Planned module names are:
Why? Because |
We used It was beacause Odoo have already packages, packaging... 🤕 |
@pedrobaeza I introduced the required function finally, the problem I see if we set the seasonability feature in an extra module, that will require a lot of glue modules. I mean :
It will generate a lot of glue modules, only for a python line. Solution 1 : A lot of glue modules. (I'd like to avoid that). What do you think ? |
@legalsylvain I don't see the need of that glue modules: |
I have created OCA/product-pack: https://github.com/OCA/product-pack. @ernestotejeda please move PRs to that repository. |
…dable [IMP] possibility to overload product_pack
@ernestotejeda for me looks good. About what you ask for the virtual_available, I have tested and discuss internally with the team, and for be honest we do not remember why we force to virtual_available to be positive, we were not able to found a user case, feel free to change it to 'virtual_available': (
pack_virtual_available and
min(pack_virtual_available) or False), About the migration script, thank you for change it Best Regards |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rather interesting to see how this module will interact with the rest. Probably a lot of changes have to be done (reporting, stock valuation etc) to take (or not take) into consideration the products of type pack. (Perhaps adding a product type would be better than the pack_ok
)
What is the use case for this?
I understand that the products that are marked as Packs are supposed to contain other products, they are not comprised by these products.
If this is a picking issue, maybe some sort of grouping of stock.moves would be better.
'parent product company')) | ||
|
||
@api.multi | ||
def write(self, vals): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What kind of error are you trying to avoid here? What if you set store=True
to pack_line_ids
or provide an inverse?
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
id,name,model_id:id,group_id:id,perm_read,perm_write,perm_create,perm_unlink |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps the security settings should mimic the settings in product
module?
I think more changes will be needed if you create a new product type, as all the domains, filters, etc works over existing ones. The bridge for stock operations is OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse#718. All of this must be moved though to the new OCA/product-pack repo. |
Hi all, thanks for this. Sorry to arrive late here but what is the difference with BOM's ? |
@rousseldenis there are plenty of reasons for having this:
|
Hi @ernestotejeda Best Regards |
Yes, superseded by OCA/product-pack#1 |
Cc @Tecnativa