Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[13.0][FIX] purchase_request: Proper Run Buy implementation #853

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 10, 2020
Merged

[13.0][FIX] purchase_request: Proper Run Buy implementation #853

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 10, 2020

Conversation

HviorForgeFlow
Copy link
Member

@HviorForgeFlow HviorForgeFlow commented Jan 31, 2020 •
edited
Loading

This fix aims to properly run either PR or PO when multiple procurements are thrown.

  • Stock.rule is already defined on Procrement() Object, Redo checks.

CC @ForgeFlow @kongrattapong

MiquelRForgeFlow
MiquelRForgeFlow approved these changes Feb 10, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@MiquelRForgeFlow MiquelRForgeFlow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

purchase_request/__manifest__.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
AaronHForgeFlow
AaronHForgeFlow reviewed Feb 10, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@AaronHForgeFlow AaronHForgeFlow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Created to Orderpoints, one for directly create a PO and the other for purchase requests. Run the scheduler. Only the PO was created for the product. No purchase request was created.

For testing I used newly created products and two different vendors for each product. One product had purchase request + buy as routes. The order had just Buy.

AaronHForgeFlow
AaronHForgeFlow approved these changes Feb 10, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@AaronHForgeFlow AaronHForgeFlow left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 Dismiss my previous comment, it works.

off topic: it was something related to multicompany, for some reason the orderpoint was defaulted to Chicago instead of San Francico, even when I was working in San Francisco 🤔

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

@HviorForgeFlow
Copy link
Member Author

/ocabot merge patch

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

What a great day to merge this nice PR. Let's do it!
Prepared branch 13.0-ocabot-merge-pr-853-by-HviorForgeFlow-bump-patch, awaiting test results.

OCA-git-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2020
@OCA-git-bot
Merge PR #853 into 13.0
5a66294 
Signed-off-by HviorForgeFlow
@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit a7067c3 into OCA:13.0 Feb 10, 2020
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at a287fbb. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

@MiquelRForgeFlow MiquelRForgeFlow deleted the 13.0-fix-purchase_request branch February 10, 2020 13:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@AaronHForgeFlow AaronHForgeFlow AaronHForgeFlow approved these changes

@MiquelRForgeFlow MiquelRForgeFlow MiquelRForgeFlow approved these changes

@kongrattapong kongrattapong Awaiting requested review from kongrattapong

@LoisRForgeFlow LoisRForgeFlow Awaiting requested review from LoisRForgeFlow

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
approved merged 🎉 needs review ready to merge
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@HviorForgeFlow @OCA-git-bot @AaronHForgeFlow @MiquelRForgeFlow