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][MIG] stock_inventory_revaluation #894
[12.0][MIG] stock_inventory_revaluation #894
Conversation
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.
Initial functional review for AVCO costing, will do FiFo later.
stock_inventory_revaluation/models/stock_inventory_revaluation.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
stock_inventory_revaluation/models/stock_inventory_revaluation.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
stock_inventory_revaluation/models/stock_inventory_revaluation.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
I think a nice addition would be a new revaluation type "Based on Template", in which the stock user can choose for example repair or modification as template and stock accounts are automatically loaded. This allows a user without accounting knowledge to do revaluations. |
@CasVissers, Making it a revaluation type doesn't make sense to me. The revaluation types should be mutually exclusive. After choosing a template, we still need to know whether this is a Unit Price Change, or a Total Value Change. I think I would make the revaluation type another field on the template. |
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ | |||
<field name="name"/> | |||
<field name="revaluation_type"/> | |||
<field name="document_date"/> | |||
<field name="user_id"/> | |||
<field name="create_uid"/> |
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.
@JordiBForgeFlow Do you have an advice on this ? Why did you use a specific field for this ?
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.
@rousseldenis, @JordiBForgeFlow, Can we go ahead, and merge this PR? This is the only unresolved comment.
Still getting flake8 FAIL. It passes flake8 tests locally. Other PRs are passing the flake8 test. Can someone help me understand why mine is failing? |
@matt454357 Nice work on the template functionality! Added one minor remark about new_value which should be readonly when posted. For the decimal rounding in the value change I'm not sure yet. I understand the issue, but the current workflow implies that the value will be updated to the entered value. It will be confusing for end-users. The only solution I have for now is to add a price difference or rounding difference account which is used to book the difference. This gives the user more flexibility and also explains and warns for possible rounding issues. What do you think? |
@CasVissers thanks for all the feedback. I made new_value readonly, as you suggested. For the decimal rounding, I noted the behavior in some field help attributes. I also added some info to the list of known issues. The issue seems to have been present in previous versions, so I don't feel bad about leaving it. |
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.
Minor remark. Apart of that, seems great
…ventory revaluation, instead of directly posting the journal entries.
…proper traceability
… quants with real method
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.
LGTM. Even-though I would have liked a better flow for rounding differences when updating the stock value. I think this is still confusing for end-users.
This PR has the |
@rousseldenis, @CasVissers, @pedrobaeza, |
I let @rousseldenis to merge as I'm not a qualified reviewer for this module and he has merge rights. |
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.
Seems to be OK
@rousseldenis |
/ocabot merge patch |
Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you. |
Congratulations, your PR was merged at f588433. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️ |
/ocabot merge nobump |
This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it! |
Migration from 10.0 to 12.0