[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1070?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ray Barlow updated OFBIZ-1070:
------------------------------
Attachment: packslip.patch
Got around to testing it and found a few more issues. It might have been my
misunderstanding of the column "Total Shipped" but I expected it to display the
total of all shipped product items including previous shipments. But it was
only displaying the total of this particular shipment which would only be a
different value if you split the same product into more than one package in a
shipment.
I've now changed it to display another column "In this shipment" only if there
is more than 1 package in the shipment and it shows the totals of the products
within the shipment. The "Total Shipped" column now displays the quantity of
this shipment plus earlier shipments if any.
Also to get the requested count to be correct when one product code is on
multiple order lines and is then split across multiple packages and shipments I
had to change the look up of issuances to be against the order rather than just
the shipment otherwise it wouldn't count all the requests.
I've looked at this in quite a few scenarios and it looks OK to me now so any
comments welcome before I commit it shortly.
Ray
PS: Found more problems with requested counts on the packing page but I'll
create a new Jira for that.
> Packing PDF calculates wrong value for requested count with when handling
> multiple issuances
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-1070
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1070
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: product
> Affects Versions: SVN trunk
> Environment: N/A
> Reporter: Ray Barlow
> Attachments: packslip.patch, packslip.patch
>
>
> If the data hangs around on the test site see order : WSCO10000 The original
> quantity requested was 18 for "GZ-8544 - Big Gizmo" and the packing slip
> shows 36 requested and 18 shipped.
> To reproduce this you just need to create an order with a product that will
> be allocated against more than one inventory issuance. For the WSCO10000 test
> order the total QOH on the product before ordering was 18 split across two
> inventory items one with 15 and one with 3, so I asked for a quantity 18 in
> the order and then once created just approved and quick shipped the whole
> order. View the packing slip PDF and you can see the problem.
> This is the problem code segment : PackingSlip.bsh line 49
> ......
> // next scan the order items (via issuances) to count the quantity of each
> product requested
> quantityRequestedByProduct = FastMap.newInstance();
> issuances = shipment.getRelated("ItemIssuance");
> for (iter = issuances.iterator(); iter.hasNext(); ) {
> issuance = iter.next();
> orderItem = issuance.getRelatedOne("OrderItem");
> productId = orderItem.get("productId");
> requested = quantityRequestedByProduct.get(productId);
> if (requested == null) requested = new Double(0);
> cancelQuantity = orderItem.getDouble("cancelQuantity");
> quantity = orderItem.getDouble("quantity");
> requested += quantity.doubleValue() - (cancelQuantity != null ?
> cancelQuantity.doubleValue() : 0);
> quantityRequestedByProduct.put(productId, requested);
> }
> ......
> I can suggest a fix easily enough: (formatting aside!)
> ...
> requested = quantityRequestedByProduct.get(productId);
> if (requested == null) {
> requested = new Double(0);
> cancelQuantity = orderItem.getDouble("cancelQuantity");
> quantity = orderItem.getDouble("quantity");
> requested += quantity.doubleValue() - (cancelQuantity != null ?
> cancelQuantity.doubleValue() : 0);
> quantityRequestedByProduct.put(productId, requested);
> }
> ...
> basically wrap the code block after the if in to the whole condition as I
> can't see a reason you'd want to recount the same product.
> I'd appreciate comment for side effects because it looks like whoever coded
> it in the first place kind of expected the productId to appear more than once
> otherwise why call "get"? Is the above fix OK or is there another scenario
> I'm not thinking of?
> Ray
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
