Thanks for the feedback Ray. I created a new issue for this here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-313
-David
On Sep 15, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Ray Barlow wrote:
Anybody assuming the framework is issuing stock on a FIFO basis and
retaining that allocation sequence should be interested in this
bug! This is still active in the current SVN code base, so orders
can jump the queue if changes occur to the inventory levels as
described and possible other ways not tested here.
Ray
Marco Risaliti (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-774?page=all ]
Marco Risaliti closed OFBIZ-774:
--------------------------------
Resolution: Won't Fix
For the moment I will close it if someone interested on it can
create a new issue.
FIFO stock reservation not being honoured
-----------------------------------------
Key: OFBIZ-774
URL: http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-774
Project: [OFBiz] Open For Business
Type: Bug
Components: order
Versions: SVN
Environment: NA
Reporter: Ray Barlow
Assignee: Jira Administrator
The default catalogue data suggests that orders should be
prioritised on the FIFO priniciple for stock allocation. So when
order1 comes in it should be allocated all the stock it requires
for completion before order2 and stay that way.
I'm ignoring the business complications that can arise around
picking order2 first as it is being held up by one item order1
has and order1 is being held up because of another item etc.
The FIFO allocation fails under the following scenario: (clean
database against SVN seed data)
1) Place an order for 10 x WG-9943-S4. This allocates all ATP stock.
2) Create some more stock against WG-9943-S4, I've done 10/10 on
ATP/QOH
3) Now create another order 10 x WG-9943-S4, which again should
allocate all the stock.
4) Both orders should be ready to complete, nothing on back order.
5) In the order manager view order WS10000 (order1) and click on
the inventory link, mine is showing as id 10000
6) Add an invariance to remove some stock i.e. -2/-2 ATP/QOH as
damaged.
7) Back to the order view and now WS10000 is on back order. This
means order2 has jumped the que and the balance routine did not
honour the FIFO prinicple! WS10000 should get priority over the
stock allocated to order2.
PS: When I clicked on "Find Order" and show all records, it
displayed 1-2 of 2, but in the list there was only order number
WS10000 visible, I'll investigate further, but it appears the
view is showing one to few!
