[16.0] Fix build

[simahawk]

Tackling some issues from #1513

[OCA-git-bot]

Hi @legalsylvain,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

[legalsylvain]

Thanks !

[legalsylvain]

/ocabot merge patch

[OCA-git-bot]

Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you.
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1521-by-legalsylvain-bump-patch, awaiting test results.

[OCA-git-bot]

@legalsylvain your merge command was aborted due to failed check(s), which you can inspect on this commit of 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1521-by-legalsylvain-bump-patch.

After fixing the problem, you can re-issue a merge command. Please refrain from merging manually as it will most probably make the target branch red.

[simahawk]

There's an unrelated error on abc_classification_product_level
https://github.com/OCA/product-attribute/actions/runs/7955666562/job/21715009413?pr=1521#step:8:480

[legalsylvain]

There's an unrelated error on abc_classification_product_level

The error is in the module product_abc_classification

@rousseldenis, @lmignon @MiquelRForgeFlow, @lmarion-source

could you take a look ?
thanks !

[simahawk]

There's an unrelated error on abc_classification_product_level

The error is in the module product_abc_classification

@rousseldenis, @lmignon @MiquelRForgeFlow, @lmarion-source

could you take a look ? thanks !

I'm on it

[simahawk]

Now the issue is on product_supplierinfo_for_customer

[simahawk]

To me the domain used to look for the customer info is wrong.
Failing test:

This means that the selected customer info should be the one w/ price = 100.0 because is the one assigned to the specific variant. However, the selection gives you back the generic price:

(Pdb++) product._select_customerinfo(partner=self.customer).price
30.0

When I look at the domain it seems wrong

Pdb++) product._prepare_domain_customerinfo({"partner_id": self.customer.id})
[('partner_id', '=', 49), '|', ('product_id', '=', 49), '&', ('product_tmpl_id', '=', 32), ('product_id', '=', False)]

By logic, I assume we should have an AND w/ partner and product and fallback w/ the OR. However I don't know this module at all...

@pedrobaeza @sergio-teruel @MiquelRForgeFlow @AaronHForgeFlow anyone can provide some feedback?

[pedrobaeza]

In a first sight, I don't see the domain incorrect. It's saying that:

• The partner should be 49
• And then, comply with one on these criteria:
  • The product is 49
  • Or the product is empty and the product template is 32, which should be the template for product 49

The only weird thing is that the partner ID and the product ID is the same, but reading the code, it seems legit.

[simahawk]

IMO there's something wrong because even if I have 2 records matching the partner and only one of them matches the variant I get the generic one (matching only the tmpl) as a result. Hence, I assume the domain is wrong.

[pedrobaeza]

But for that, there's this sort: https://github.com/OCA/product-attribute/blob/16.0/product_supplierinfo_for_customer/models/product_product.py#L138

[victoralmau]

IMO the solution for product_supplierinfo_for_customer is to set a sequnce for each element of product.customerinfo (sequence: 10 and sequence: 20 respectively for example).

[AaronHForgeFlow]

I think the matching of the variant is more important than the template. Perhaps the sorting is incorrect. Created PR with this: camptocamp#4

[pedrobaeza]

@victoralmau see my previous comments. Anyway, you can exercise the solution in one PR if you see it's the proper one.

[pedrobaeza]

Fixed in #1528, although the solution doesn't convince me too much I have to say, as this reveals a flaw in the design.

[AaronHForgeFlow]

Tested in my local with this: camptocamp#4 and test were not failing

[pedrobaeza]

But that's not very optimal in performance. We should try to avoid several filtered.

[AaronHForgeFlow]

@pedrobaeza after @lmignon suggestion it works the same without the use of filtered: https://github.com/camptocamp/product-attribute/pull/4/files

[pedrobaeza]

Can you gather all and rebase for getting the proper solution?

[AaronHForgeFlow]

Can you gather all and rebase for getting the proper solution?

Hi @pedrobaeza is this comment in regards my PR? I am afraid I did not get what you mean.

[pedrobaeza]

Yes, I mean to put here in this PR (by @simahawk or someone else) the needed things to get such proper code.

[simahawk]

I'll cherry-pick camptocamp#4

[simahawk]

Are we all fine w/ these fixes?

[pedrobaeza]

/ocabot merge patch

[OCA-git-bot]

Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you.
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-1521-by-pedrobaeza-bump-patch, awaiting test results.

[OCA-git-bot]

Congratulations, your PR was merged at c302a0e. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️