Am 09.03.2017 um 19:13 schrieb Cédric Krier: > On 2017-03-09 18:45, Ul wrote: >> Am 09.03.2017 um 15:29 schrieb Cédric Krier: >>> On 2017-03-09 14:23, Ul wrote: >>>> If you just follow the lot relations made by production, you are right. >>>> But as i explained to Sergi, i added a aditional field 'supplier_lot' to >>>> move, that is filled by shipment in, as i do not want to use the Lot >>>> numbers of the supplier internally, but of cause have to track my lots >>>> back to them. >>> >>> But this could be simply managed by adding the field supplier_lot on the >>> lot instead of adding a new field on the move. >> this way i have the supplier Lot as a independent Lot that is nicely >> integrated in my tree. for example: http://pasteboard.co/HpSrF4dk8.png >> The lots with a party as origin are supplier lots, and with the context >> menu i can change to the supplier or the shipment.. > > I do not understand. > For me, there is no independent lot possible. Your internal lot should > always come from the same supplier lot. So the information about > supplier lot could be stored on the lot. But of course you can add a > Function field on stock move to show it next to the lot. Yes, the internal lot always comes from the same supplier lot. But several supplier shipments can ship the same supplier lot. I want to create a new internal lot at each shipment to track the internal lot back to the shipment. This is the main reason to have an extra internal lot. The other reason is, that some suppliers have lot numbers with more than 15 digits and i don't want to type them all the time. The supplier lot has to have a full line in the lot table to be searchable as any other lot.
Yes, it would be possible with a many2one field in the internal lot. But to include the relation in my tree i would need a function field in move and i would still need a custom query with a union for the tree. So for me it seems more complicated this way as i want to handle and display this relation as the other relations. > >>> With that, you stay standard and your view could be integrated in >>> Tryton. >>> >> For integration in tryton it anyway has to be a separate module, as it >> requires production module and stock_lot module. So why not using my >> supplier_lot in move too. I can share my whole module (called >> stock_lot_trace) if you are interested. But I'm afraid it does not yet >> comply with your programming standards... > > Of course, it is interesting to have production traceability. > But it must fit with the generic concept of Tryton. But for me, the need > of supplier_lot is not understood. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tryton" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/e527b1f0-d1d8-0496-4ccc-02be3f39c615%40gmx.de.
