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.

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

[17.0][IMP] repair_picking_after_done: Implement auto-transfer functionality for completed repair orders #72

Conversation

ppyczko
Copy link
Contributor

@ppyczko ppyczko commented Dec 2, 2024

This PR introduces the functionality to automatically create transfers for repaired products once a repair order is completed. This feature is controlled via the configuration setting repair.auto_transfer_repair.

cc https://github.com/APSL 160548

@miquelalzanillas @lbarry-apsl @mpascuall @peluko00 @javierobcn @BernatObrador please review

Depends on:

@ppyczko ppyczko force-pushed the 17.0-imp-repair_picking_after_done-automatic-transfers branch 2 times, most recently from ceca32e to 344daf8 Compare December 5, 2024 11:43
@ppyczko ppyczko force-pushed the 17.0-imp-repair_picking_after_done-automatic-transfers branch 3 times, most recently from afc6f03 to 0c1709c Compare December 11, 2024 14:09
Copy link

@mpascuall mpascuall left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, tested in runboat

@peluko00
Copy link
Contributor

peluko00 commented Dec 16, 2024

@ppyczko Maybe is good option to compute destination location value from the current order and if the user will be change have option. What do you think about this?

@ppyczko ppyczko force-pushed the 17.0-imp-repair_picking_after_done-automatic-transfers branch from 0c1709c to 8286826 Compare December 16, 2024 11:21
@ppyczko
Copy link
Contributor Author

ppyczko commented Dec 16, 2024

@ppyczko Maybe is good option to compute destination location value from the current order and if the user will be change have option. What do you think about this?

Done! Thank you for the suggestion @peluko00, could you review again please?

Copy link

@BernatObrador BernatObrador left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@ppyczko
Copy link
Contributor Author

ppyczko commented Dec 17, 2024

Hi @LoisRForgeFlow, sorry to ping directly. Could you please review this IMP when you have a moment and check if it can be merged please? Thank you!

Copy link
Contributor

@peluko00 peluko00 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

Copy link

@LoisRForgeFlow LoisRForgeFlow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Functional and code review 👍

Thanks for adapting and converging!

@LoisRForgeFlow
Copy link

/ocabot merge minor

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

On my way to merge this fine PR!
Prepared branch 17.0-ocabot-merge-pr-72-by-LoisRForgeFlow-bump-minor, awaiting test results.

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 77676a0. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit 0c2066a into OCA:17.0 Dec 27, 2024
7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants