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.

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

[MIG] stock_location_lockdown : Migration to 12.0 #720

Merged
merged 15 commits into from Oct 1, 2019

Conversation

clementmbr
Copy link
Member

Module migration adding a Warning message when trying to check the stock location 's "Block stock entrance" checkbox if the stock location has got quants.

Also added a test to test this Warning message.

florian-dacosta and others added 14 commits September 19, 2019 14:27
Currently translated at 80.0% (4 of 5 strings)

Translation: stock-logistics-warehouse-10.0/stock-logistics-warehouse-10.0-stock_location_lockdown
Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/stock-logistics-warehouse-10-0/stock-logistics-warehouse-10-0-stock_location_lockdown/pt/
When forcing an outgoing move and then moving it. Odoo create a
negative quant. This quant should not be in the locked location
because no quand will go in it and so the negative quant will stay
here for ever
Updated by "Update PO files to match POT (msgmerge)" hook in Weblate.

Translation: stock-logistics-warehouse-10.0/stock-logistics-warehouse-10.0-stock_location_lockdown
Translate-URL: https://translation.odoo-community.org/projects/stock-logistics-warehouse-10-0/stock-logistics-warehouse-10-0-stock_location_lockdown/
@clementmbr clementmbr changed the title [MIG] Port stock_location_lockdown to v12 [MIG] stock_location_lockdown : Migration to 12.0 Sep 19, 2019
mission is to support the collaborative development of Odoo features and
promote its widespread use.

This module is part of the `OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse <https://github.com/OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse/tree/10.0/stock_location_lockdown>`_ project on GitHub.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

10.0 - > 12.0

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

AFAIK, the readme file is re-generated from the readme folder.
So no need to change anything about that.


{
"name": "Stock Location Lockdown",
"summary": "Prevent to add stock on flagged locations",
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Instead of flagged location it would be better if you can replace it with something meaningful description.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks quite meaningful to me knowing that there is the complete description on the DESCRIPTION.rst file.
Do you have a better suggestion ?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would suggest something like Prevent to add stock on locked locations.

Copy link
Sponsor Contributor

@rousseldenis rousseldenis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code review


{
"name": "Stock Location Lockdown",
"summary": "Prevent to add stock on locked locations",
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@MeetKD I've just changed it. Is the rest of the module ok?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review 👍

Copy link

@HaraldPanten HaraldPanten left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Functional review using Runbot 👍

@JordiBForgeFlow
Copy link
Sponsor Member

cc @nuriamartinxifre

@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). 🤖

@rousseldenis
Copy link
Sponsor Contributor

/ocabot merge

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 12.0-ocabot-merge-pr-720-by-rousseldenis-bump-no, awaiting test results.

OCA-git-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2019
Signed-off-by rousseldenis
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

It looks like something changed on 12.0 in the meantime.
Let me try again (no action is required from you).
Prepared branch 12.0-ocabot-merge-pr-720-by-rousseldenis-bump-no, awaiting test results.

OCA-git-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2019
Signed-off-by rousseldenis
@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit 1014d79 into OCA:12.0 Oct 1, 2019
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 1ab0949. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet