Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[RFC][WMS] OCA apps #1

Closed
9 of 32 tasks
jgrandguillaume opened this issue Jun 20, 2019 · 18 comments
Closed
9 of 32 tasks

[RFC][WMS] OCA apps #1

jgrandguillaume opened this issue Jun 20, 2019 · 18 comments
Assignees
@jgrandguillaume @guewen @grindtildeath @gurneyalex

Comments

@jgrandguillaume
Copy link
Member

jgrandguillaume commented Jun 20, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Hi,

We're working at @camptocamp on Odoo logistic projects since a while and we also have an on-going important project to replace an existing WMS. I though it might be the time to build up an OCA WMS apps.

Before proposing this, I 've been in touch with Odoo to first ask if they want to implement some of the foreseen features in the core. After some talks with them, it turns out they won't do it (too complex, not fit their strategy, etc..)

Here is the first draft document that try to define the features list: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mct6bFFWJqW01wGFcjc-uQNEjyCxvh6Y9TuFdRhe-b0/edit#

Linked issues

Keep it mind that the main goal here is for us to cover our customer needs and we will try to release a first viable version here.

We wanted to share it ASAP with you all in order for you to comments, participate and contribute to it if you feel the will !

I will keep you updated in this issue about our progress. Feel free to participate.

Best regards,

Joël
@rousseldenis
Copy link
Contributor

rousseldenis commented Jun 20, 2019 via email

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the initiative. Isn't better to split each feature in an issue for better focused discussion?

@OSevangelist
Copy link

Hi @jgrandguillaume we have done such a "tremendously complex" project in the past with one of our customers, that is running stable since ~2.5 years now. Another project of ours has been stopped in the middle because it turned out that the intra logistics simulation had never taken place and the physical idea (of the goods movement) was a way lacking behind the chaoting (non-streamlined) process before. I really endorse this initiative but i'd say it need to be very very generic to account for the vast differences in phyiscal warehous set ups. Wouldn't it be great to discuss such an architecture vis-a-vis a first prototype in LLN ?

@OSevangelist
Copy link

@kmatthes maybe you should step here as well as you were part of the projects i just mentioned

@jgrandguillaume
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the initiative. Isn't better to split each feature in an issue for better focused discussion?

Hi Pedro, Good point yes ! Thing is, I'm at an early stage, so list isn't clear yet. Will do when I feel more confident about the list ok?

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

OK, but you know, the sooner, the better 😃

@jgrandguillaume
Copy link
Member Author

I really endorse this initiative but i'd say it need to be very very generic to account for the vast differences in phyiscal warehous set ups. Wouldn't it be great to discuss such an architecture vis-a-vis a first prototype in LLN ?

Yes, that exactly the challenge. I'm not pretending I'll succeed, but I'll give it a try ;)

@andreampiovesana
Copy link

Good
I want to join the team
I worked for the 3d warehouse
And much more ...
https://youtu.be/Cy1IUE8Ihzo

@abstract-odoo
Copy link

Great.

Abstract-Technology team

@jgrandguillaume jgrandguillaume changed the title [RFC] WMS apps [RFC][WMS] OCA apps Jul 12, 2019
@guewen
Copy link
Member

guewen commented Aug 28, 2019

As we start to have many pull requests for these addons, and they have cross-dependencies, we would like to start merging them with the 'development_status': 'Alpha', flag. It'll be easier to review as currently we have to include PRs in other PRs (example :OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse#683 includes OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse#653).

I'm not asking to bypass reviews, but to accept addons in their alpha version knowing that they are not mature for production. As I understood, the development_status was meant for this.

@rousseldenis, @tafaRU, @Cedric-Pigeon, @lreficent, @gurneyalex as members of the PSC, do you have any issues with this proposal? (I don't ask @jgrandguillaume because the proposal comes from him :))

@rousseldenis
Copy link
Contributor

@guewen So, the PR's are not in draft status anymore ? Cool!

I will pass on each soon and of course we can move forward with that development status.

@guewen
Copy link
Member

guewen commented Aug 28, 2019

I'm going to make a pass on them to ensure they have minimal readme files, the alpha development status and such (but besides this, the PRs are in a state where we could make a good demo), I wanted to ask soon enough about the development status, but you were so fast to answer... :D

@rafaelbn
Copy link
Member

Ping me please, i will review on Friday 😄

@guewen
Copy link
Member

guewen commented Sep 2, 2019

PRs for Alpha versions of the first addons:
stock_location_zone OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse#653
stock_picking_zone OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse#639
stock_vertical_lift OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse#633

I have added links in the issue description with the first alpha addons to review

@grindtildeath
Copy link
Contributor

@jgrandguillaume To add in the description

@jgrandguillaume jgrandguillaume transferred this issue from OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse Sep 13, 2019
@bealdav
Copy link
Member

bealdav commented Sep 17, 2019

Hi @jgrandguillaume, just a naive question.

I assume this repo is the final destination of some of them list here : those strictly used for advanced stock usage aka wms, i.e. stock_vertical_lift

Is it defined to rename those for wms_ prefix instead of stock_ ?
If yes it could be a clean separation between advanced stock usage (dedicated activity) and conventional stock management associated to companies.
What do you think ?

This was referenced Sep 23, 2019
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
@jgrandguillaume jgrandguillaume mentioned this issue Sep 23, 2019
Closed
@larshalvoraam
Copy link

I will be happy to review and assist in testing.

This was referenced Apr 20, 2020
Closed
Closed
@jgrandguillaume jgrandguillaume mentioned this issue May 28, 2020
Closed
62 tasks
@jgrandguillaume
Copy link
Member Author

I close this one as we move to pilot phase now. Track progress here #29

OCA-git-bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 29, 2020
@santostelmo
Merge pull request #1 from sebalix/13.0-search-ordered-available-to-p…
b9ed07b 
…romise2

[IMP]  stock_available_to_promise_release: filter out moves to deliver 'all at once'
jbaudoux referenced this issue in jbaudoux/wms Aug 23, 2021
@lmignon
Merge pull request #1 from jbaudoux/pr95-backport-13_fix_abc_maxheight
e1a6712 
Change sorting of locations in the pack putaway computation
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jgrandguillaume jgrandguillaume

@guewen guewen

@grindtildeath grindtildeath

@gurneyalex gurneyalex

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests