search

OCA / wms

Warehouse Management System for advance logistic with Odoo
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
159 stars 192 forks source link

[RFC][WMS] OCA apps #1

Closed jgrandguillaume closed 4 years ago

jgrandguillaume commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

Hi Joël,

Thanks for the initiative!

I will certainly participate into this as having involved too in some different WMS implementations.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:00 PM Joël Grand-Guillaume < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Hi,

We're working at @camptocamp https://github.com/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#

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

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse/issues/621?email_source=notifications&email_token=AEU76PLDISWMQ35DXI52MLLP3NINHA5CNFSM4HZRJXJKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4G2VCSQQ, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEU76PJAGS64EIBDMIKQWNTP3NINHANCNFSM4HZRJXJA .

--

*Denis RousselSoftware Engineer Acsone SA, Succursale de Luxembourg Tel : +352 20 21 10 20 19 <%2B352%2020%2021%2010%2020> Fax : +352 20 21 10 21 <%2B352%2020%2021%2010%2021> Gsm : *+352 691 50 60 88 <%2B352%20691%20504%20005>

Acsone sa/nv Boulevard de la Woluwe 56 Woluwedal | B-1200 Brussels | Belgium Zone Industrielle 22 | L-8287 Kehlen | Luxembourg www.acsone.eu http://www.acsone.eu/

pedrobaeza commented 5 years ago

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

OSevangelist commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

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

jgrandguillaume commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

OK, but you know, the sooner, the better :smiley:

jgrandguillaume commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

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

abstract-odoo commented 5 years ago

Great.

Abstract-Technology team

guewen commented 5 years ago

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 :https://github.com/OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse/pull/683 includes https://github.com/OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse/pull/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 commented 5 years ago

@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 commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

Ping me please, i will review on Friday :smile:

guewen commented 5 years ago

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 commented 5 years ago

@jgrandguillaume To add in the description

bealdav commented 5 years ago

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 ?

larshalvoraam commented 4 years ago

I will be happy to review and assist in testing.

jgrandguillaume commented 4 years ago

I close this one as we move to pilot phase now. Track progress here https://github.com/OCA/wms/issues/29