[FIX] stock: ensure reception report always uses quantity field #147815
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
svs-odoo
reviewed
Jan 2, 2024
addons/stock/tests/test_report.py
Outdated
Comment on lines
1707
to
1709
| self.assertEqual(len(delivery.move_ids_without_package), 2, "Delivery moves should have split into assigned + not assigned") | ||
| self.assertEqual(len(delivery.move_ids_without_package.mapped('move_orig_ids')), 1, "Only 1 delivery + 1 receipt move should be assigned") | ||
| self.assertEqual(len(receipt.move_ids_without_package.mapped('move_dest_ids')), 1, "Receipt move should remain unsplit") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The mapped is not needed and I find the comment "Only 1 delivery + 1 receipt move should be assigned" not very helpful (I let a suggestion but feel free to not follow it)
Suggested change
| self.assertEqual(len(delivery.move_ids_without_package), 2, "Delivery moves should have split into assigned + not assigned") | |
| self.assertEqual(len(delivery.move_ids_without_package.mapped('move_orig_ids')), 1, "Only 1 delivery + 1 receipt move should be assigned") | |
| self.assertEqual(len(receipt.move_ids_without_package.mapped('move_dest_ids')), 1, "Receipt move should remain unsplit") | |
| self.assertEqual(len(delivery.move_ids_without_package), 2, "Delivery moves should have split into assigned + not assigned") | |
| self.assertEqual(len(delivery.move_ids_without_package.move_orig_ids), 1, "Delivery move should be linked to 1 assigned receipt move") | |
| self.assertEqual(len(receipt.move_ids_without_package.move_dest_ids), 1, "Receipt move should remain unsplit") |
But I'm not sure, maybe checking records' values (qty and move's origin) instead is better to ensure the split was correctly done ?
Suggested change
| self.assertEqual(len(delivery.move_ids_without_package), 2, "Delivery moves should have split into assigned + not assigned") | |
| self.assertEqual(len(delivery.move_ids_without_package.mapped('move_orig_ids')), 1, "Only 1 delivery + 1 receipt move should be assigned") | |
| self.assertEqual(len(receipt.move_ids_without_package.mapped('move_dest_ids')), 1, "Receipt move should remain unsplit") | |
| self.assertRecordValues(delivery.move_ids_without_package, [ | |
| {'product_qty': incoming_qty, 'move_orig_ids': receipt.move_ids_without_package.ids}, | |
| {'product_qty': outgoing_qty - incoming_qty, 'move_orig_ids': []}, | |
| ]) | |
| self.assertEqual(len(receipt.move_ids_without_package.move_dest_ids), 1, "Receipt move should remain unsplit") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whoops, too fast with my copy paste for the mapped part (pushed this change already)
For your other suggestions, I don't think they're necessary. There are 2 delivery moves after the action_assign is called because it splits it between the linked qty and the not linked qty and then I check those values in the later asserts. I would prefer to avoid the test failing due to the order of the records changing since that part doesn't matter.
Since odoo#140898 the pickings detailed operation view has been moved to a smart button instead of showing in a picking tab. This included the removal of the `force_detailed_view` context since there was no longer a detailed view to force show. This commit removes some leftover references to this context within tests.
Following quantitypocalypse (odoo#137864), a couple of `reserved_uom_qty` and `reserved_qty` references were left over. This was partially due to no tests for these tricky parts of the code, therefore we both fix these references to use the newer `quantity`/`quantity_product_uom` fields and add/update tests to ensure we avoid breaking these 2 use cases again. Also discovered during this fix, the remaining assigned qtys when unassigning done incoming moves from already reserved outgoing moves (i.e. the "1. batch reserved + individual picking unreserved" use case in the code comments) was NOT being calculated correctly. This also fixes that + adds a test for it.
ticodoo
force-pushed
the
17.0-stock-fix-reception-report-qty-fields-tic
branch
from
3e45eac
to
c65d7d9
Compare
|
robodoo r+ |
|
robodoo rebase-ff |
|
Merge method set to rebase and fast-forward. |
robodoo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2024
Since #140898 the pickings detailed operation view has been moved to a smart button instead of showing in a picking tab. This included the removal of the `force_detailed_view` context since there was no longer a detailed view to force show. This commit removes some leftover references to this context within tests. Part-of: #147815
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Does a couple of small fixes
Removes some leftover post-quantitypocalypse field references that don't exist anymore for the reception report.
Also fix another bug where the unassign was keeping the incorrect link in the batch picking assign => individual picking unassign (wrong in stable too, but no one has complained since it's a rare use case so can be back-ported later if needed)
Removes obsolete
force_detailed_viewcontext reference from testsI confirm I have signed the CLA and read the PR guidelines at www.odoo.com/submit-pr