+1. On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Sumit Pandit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 > > > > On Jun 5, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > > >> On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:13 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I would like to add support for the status for non serialized inventory >>>> items (right now the status is used only for serialized items). >>>> The idea is to add a new status item for "Damaged" inventory (and maybe >>>> "On Hold" for inventory under inspection); the inventory items with this >>>> status will be excluded by the inventory counting algorithm and also by the >>>> inventory reservation service. >>>> The main goal is to add the ability to keep into the warehouse non >>>> serialized inventory items but don't use them in orders etc... (at least >>>> until they are fixed), but don't just remove them from the system (as it >>>> happens when you do a manual inventory variance). >>>> >>>> What do you think? Can I go on with this? >>>> >>> >>> It's an interesting idea. Right now all damaged/held/etc inventory is >>> treated per unit, ie as serialized inventory. When returns are received each >>> item is evaluated individually and tracked that way. >>> >>> If I understand where you are coming from, this becomes a problem when >>> you receive 1000 damaged widgets and would have to create a record for each >>> one. >>> >>> >> Yes, this is the exactly the scenario I have in mind. >> And maybe another one could be this: I have the suspect that the items in >> an inventory item could be damaged and I schedule an inspection... in the >> meantime I want to make sure the items are not reserved for new orders; so I >> change the status to "On Hold" until the inspection is done. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jacopo >> >> >> With that in mind, perhaps this might be a good way to make the >>> management easier without any data structure change, though there could be a >>> number of code changes needed. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> >> >
