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

Project Report "Amount to Order" and "Sum (Order)" should pull from Distributors more intelligently #404

Open
kbembedded opened this issue Jun 19, 2015 · 2 comments
Open

Project Report "Amount to Order" and "Sum (Order)" should pull from Distributors more intelligently #404

kbembedded opened this issue Jun 19, 2015 · 2 comments
Labels
Bug Medium Priority
Milestone
future

Comments

@kbembedded
Copy link

For example, I have a project that requires 500pcs of part X; and currently only have 400pcs in stock. In the distributor tab of that part there exist two prices from the same supplier, 500pcs price, and 100pcs price.

Autofill is smart enough to know that I am 100pcs short and tells me I need to order 100pcs, however the price is based on the 500pcs order price, rather than the 100pcs order price.

Partkeepr should probably use the price per part of the next lower order quantity, failing that, bump up the "Amount to Order" to the next higher order quantity as set up in the distributor tab of a part. That way the actual to-order cost is correctly reflected.

This was reproduced in a local install of 0.1.9, I have not tested it on the demo server but I assume the results would be similar.

Want to back this issue? Post a bounty on it! We accept bounties via Bountysource.
@kbembedded kbembedded mentioned this issue Jul 5, 2015
Open
@Drachenkaetzchen Drachenkaetzchen added this to the 1.0 milestone Oct 16, 2015
@Drachenkaetzchen Drachenkaetzchen modified the milestones: 1.1, 1.0 Mar 14, 2016
@Drachenkaetzchen Drachenkaetzchen modified the milestones: 1.3, 1.2 Jan 17, 2017
@Drachenkaetzchen Drachenkaetzchen modified the milestone: 1.3 Sep 3, 2017
@xxv xxv mentioned this issue Jan 2, 2019
Open
@baradhili baradhili added this to the future milestone Jan 17, 2020
berndoJ added a commit to berndoJ/PartKeepr that referenced this issue May 24, 2020
@berndoJ
Implement partkeepr#341 / partkeepr#404
7b1d103 
Implements the feature described in issue partkeepr#341 / partkeepr#404 (related / duplicates)

This simply adds a check to the report calculation which takes the packagingUnit into account.

If the part count (so the missing parts which have to be ordered) is not larger than the packagingUnit of the part distributor, that distributor is omitted (by the continue keyword).
@berndoJ berndoJ mentioned this issue May 24, 2020
Open
@berndoJ
Copy link

berndoJ commented May 24, 2020

Should be fixed / implemented in pull request 1122.

@christianlupus
Copy link
Collaborator

I confirm this more a bug than a feature request.

@christianlupus christianlupus mentioned this issue May 25, 2020
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Bug Medium Priority
Projects
None yet
Milestone
future
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@Drachenkaetzchen @baradhili @kbembedded @christianlupus @berndoJ