[16.0][ADD] rma_product_exchange #528
Conversation
chafique-delli
force-pushed
the
16.0-ADD-rma_product_exchange
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5f5ef85 to
d1505d3
Compare
|
For this use case we typically do a sales order free of cost, where we change the product for another. Anyway I think it is interesting to have this use case in the operation and avoid the sales order. |
florian-dacosta
left a comment
florian-dacosta
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did not test the module yet. It is hard to see if there won't be any issue having a different product in shipping than in RMA.
For the computation of the qty_received field for instance...
I think for a start, there should be a constraint somewhere to ensure that the new product has the same uom_id as the base product of the rma line.
Else I fear we would have quite some bug, starting with this qty computed fields.
|
|
||
| @api.model | ||
| def run(self, procurements, raise_user_error=True): | ||
| if self.env.context.get("rma_item"): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this stuff really usefull ?
You already override rma_make_picking.wizard._get_product() it is enough and you don't need to do this stuff with context, or maybe I am missing something
| class RmaOrderLine(models.Model): | ||
| _inherit = "rma.order.line" | ||
|
|
||
| new_product_id = fields.Many2one( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe a help here to explain what will happen if the field is set ?
Explain that will impact the shipping
| <field name="model">rma.operation</field> | ||
| <field name="inherit_id" ref="rma.rma_operation_form" /> | ||
| <field name="arch" type="xml"> | ||
| <xpath expr="//group[@name='policies']" position="inside"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should be invisible if the delivery_policy is set to "no", because it is only used for delivery, no?
chafique-delli
force-pushed
the
16.0-ADD-rma_product_exchange
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7a04757 to
d4f09c2
Compare
florian-dacosta
left a comment
florian-dacosta
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One minor comment.
The rest seems ok to me, I'll approve already!
| return values | ||
|
|
||
| @api.model | ||
| def _create_procurement(self, item, picking_type): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This whole override is useless for now, because rma_item context key is not used anywhere anymore, right ?
In if this the case, please, remove it!
chafique-delli
force-pushed
the
16.0-ADD-rma_product_exchange
branch
from
d4f09c2 to
51dea4f
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 16.0 #528 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 81.36% 81.81% +0.44%
==========================================
Files 159 167 +8
Lines 5425 5509 +84
Branches 874 694 -180
==========================================
+ Hits 4414 4507 +93
+ Misses 769 768 -1
+ Partials 242 234 -8
... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
|
There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days. |
4 participants
This module allows you to ship a product different from the one ordered.
@florian-dacosta , @AaronHForgeFlow