Skip to content

Conversation

@lmignon
Copy link

@lmignon lmignon commented Oct 17, 2024

…bustness

Previous to this change, if the release process was 'forced' multiple time on an already released move, the system issued new procumrement rules without thaking into account the qty already released or processed. As side effect, the qty into the picking operation was higher than the expected qty to deliver. We now take into account the qty already released into the release process

@lmignon lmignon force-pushed the 16.0-stock_available_to_promise_release-release-robustness branch from 581644f to 5bf5e2c Compare October 17, 2024 13:16
@lmignon
Copy link
Author

lmignon commented Oct 17, 2024

ping @jbaudoux @TDu @sebalix @rousseldenis

@lmignon lmignon force-pushed the 16.0-stock_available_to_promise_release-release-robustness branch from 5bf5e2c to 56bd545 Compare October 17, 2024 13:18
…bustness

Previous to this change, if the release process was 'forced' multiple time on an already released move, the system issued new procumrement rules without thaking into account the qty already released or processed. As side effect, the qty into the picking operation was higher than the expected qty to deliver. We now take into account the qty already released into the release process
@lmignon lmignon force-pushed the 16.0-stock_available_to_promise_release-release-robustness branch from 56bd545 to 6713cde Compare October 17, 2024 13:19
Copy link
Contributor

@jbaudoux jbaudoux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This complexity should not be necessary because by definition a move is either in need_release or not. When in need_release, the qty to release is the product_uom_qty, and when not in need_release there is nothing to release.

This looks like a workaround for a bug non identified.

Not requesting changes, just not in favor of merging this

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 4, 2025

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.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label May 4, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Jun 8, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants