c2c-oerpscenario team mailing list archive

["Amit Parik \(OpenERP\)" <amp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

** Changed in: openobject-addons
   Importance: Undecided => Low

** Changed in: openobject-addons
       Status: New => Confirmed

** Changed in: openobject-addons
     Assignee: (unassigned) => OpenERP R&D Addons Team 2 (openerp-dev-addons2)

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of C2C
OERPScenario, which is subscribed to the OpenERP Project Group.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/794412

Title:
  delivery order with back order is 100% picked

Status in OpenERP Modules (addons):
  Confirmed

Bug description:
  Hey,
  When we do a partial picking for a delivery order, if we pick the corresponding original stock.move (the one which is linked to procurement.order), the procurement.order workflow terminates and the picking status of sale order is set to 100%.

  This is simply caused by the
  procurement>action_check_finished>check_move_done function which check
  the end of procurement.order workflow by looking only at original
  stock.move, not taking care of back order stock moves.

  Here is how to reproduce the bug:

  Create a Sale Order, with one order line (CPU1 - 10) from stock. Validate.
  In Delivery Order, split the stock move by assigning a production lot > prodlot: A, qty: 3
  Process the Delivery Order, and put 0 as a quantity for the prodlot A.
  A back order is created for prodlot A.
  The other 7 CPU1 are Done.
  Go to Sale Order, it is 100% picked. Procurement.order is Done.

  We want the picking state to take into account back orders, and
  therefore the procurement.order should not be Done until all related
  stock.moves are Done (or cancel).

  I use openerp 6.0.2. The behavior should be the same on the trunk
  version, as the check_move_done function is still the same.

  A proposal of correction, taking into account the moves linked to sale
  order lines instead of moves linked to procurement order is linked as
  attachment. The case where no sale order is involved (from order point
  ?) should be analyzed.

  Best,
  Patrick