Create Weighbridge Ticket doctype

[gaurav-naik]

Use test.andesitkaranganyar for reference.

Use separate link fields for Customer and Supplier.

[saidsl]

A few of Items

1. Would it be possible to increase the Font Size for the Weighings only
2. Please show Driver Name instead of License Number on Screen as well as Print
3. It probably has not been added but I don't see the Item/Product on the WBT Yet
4. We still need to be able to assign a Driver to a Vehicle, as I see it now, it seems all drivers appear for all Vehicles, this will make it cumbersome when the Driver list become very long (As per Issue #4)

[gaurav-naik]

1. Font attributes are not open for direct customization. Will try using jQuery to achieve this.
2. Will make sure that Driver Name is seen in both list and print.

3. Items table:

   Suggested alternative: Link field for items, with text field/child table for charges. We see the following issues with having a child table for items:

   1. One item per WBT: If this is true, having a link field for items along with a text field for charges would be more economical. A child table could be added for charges in case there are multiple charges.
   2. UOM is already being captured in the weighing section. It will have to be entered again in the items table. Also, can we have a single UOM field instead of a separate UOM for each weighing?
   3. Qty is being captured as first and second weighing. It will have to be entered again in the items table.
4. Driver to Vehicle would be a many-to-many relationship which can be implemented with a new child doctype under Vehicle. Assigning drivers to a vehicle would become an additional data-entry step. The link field for Driver, currently on the WBT form, allows a partial-matching lookup on Licence No as well as Driver Name. Wouldn't that be sufficient?

[saidsl]

Hi Guys — Following are my comments

If Font attributes are not open, that’s fine. Just want to make the numbers more visible Great Items Table It will always be one item on the Supply side and also one Item on the Customer side with the addition of charges (Delivery, service fee, etc) UOM will be set to default for the item anyway so that should not be an issue QTY must not be entered manually in ITEMs but obtained/Captured from the NETT Weight result of both Incoming & Outgoing Loads As I mentioned, I am only concerned that if the list grows to long it will not be User Friendly when selecting the driver. I don’t mind adding an extra step for assigning Drivers to Vehicles as long as its done while entering the Vehicle Details and not a separately as in done on a separate window/screen

Regards Said

On 28 Jun 2016, at 2:14 PM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

Font attributes are not open for direct customization. Will try using jQuery to achieve this.

Will make sure that Driver Name is seen in both list and print.

Items table:

Suggested alternative: Link field for items, with text field/child table for charges. We see the following issues with having a child table for items:

One item per WBT: If this is true, having a link field for items along with a text field for charges would be more economical. A child table could be added for charges in case there are multiple charges. UOM is already being captured in the weighing section. It will have to be entered again in the items table. Also, can we have a single UOM field instead of a separate UOM for each weighing? Qty is being captured as first and second weighing. It will have to be entered again in the items table. Driver to Vehicle would be a many-to-many relationship which can be implemented with a new child doctype under Vehicle. Assigning drivers to a vehicle would become an additional data-entry step. The link field for Driver, currently on the WBT form, allows a partial-matching lookup on Licence No as well as Driver Name. Wouldn't that be sufficient?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-228958039, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AExv13VZVvEVTc14ZpC8Svfp4MFQGw5xks5qQLvZgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[saidsl]

I've just tested the WBT and there are a few things that need to be changed

1. Upon approving WBT (For Customer), The "Create Sales Doc" Button is active, instead can I have a dropdown instead that allow the operator to select whether a Sales Doc or a Delivery Note is created.
2. The same would apply to the WBT (For Supplier), in the dropdown the operator would have the option to create the Purchase Order, Purchase Receipt or Purchase Invoice.
3. Please ensure that once the a "Create Sales Doc" is submitted it is no longer active. as you can see from the test, I was able to create another SO/DN
4. I also requested that the Price should not appear on the Delivery Note.

In the case of the Purchase Receipt & Delivery Note, I would like that the respective PO & SO be created in the background, as is actually already done now.

I would like to avoid the case where the operator would have to go to the SO or PO to complete the process. Ideally the entire workflow is done while at the WBT Doc

Thanks

[revant]

@saidsl Please verify Weighbridge Ticket Workflow.

[saidsl]

Hi Revant

I will email you tomorrow morning my comments re WBT workflow

Thanks & Regards Said

On 1 Jul 2016, at 7:06 PM, Revant Nandgaonkar notifications@github.com wrote:

@saidsl https://github.com/saidsl Please verify Weighbridge Ticket Workflow.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-229920510, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AExv1-KOlqYb2wcyFwPbLHSS0HFYgoAaks5qRPSjgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[saidsl]

The WBT workflow is fine except for a few things

1. We need to prevent duplication of Purchase Receipts and Delivery Notes and this duplication happens because when a WBT ticket generates a Purchase Receipt it also generates a Purchase Order when then would allow a Purchase Receipt be created based on that Purchase Order.
2. Since there are instances where a PO is not required and only a PR is, we may need to provide a way where only the PR is created without any PO.
3. There are also instances where multiple PRs are generated from a single PO for large quantities.
4. The same applies to SOs as well, duplication is happening on the DN side.
5. Please note also that the PR cannot have the item price. I would prefer to make this optional but default

Basically, other than the duplication issue, we are pretty much there already.

[revant]

https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/commit/c78c3e2c779fc1cdc629c2cf8901e2208fe0b08c

@saidsl please verify and comment.

[saidsl]

Hi Guys,

Following are my comments

The workflow works fine, however, the price is still appearing on the Delivery Note Print Version, please refer to my last comments and had requested that price should not be included on the Delivery Note Printed version. On screen it does not matter. The Driver to Vehicle issue is still not resolved, in that I am still getting the complete list of Drivers.

Other than the above 2 points all is good.

Regards Said

On 3 Jul 2016, at 8:29 PM, Revant Nandgaonkar notifications@github.com wrote:

c78c3e2 https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/commit/c78c3e2c779fc1cdc629c2cf8901e2208fe0b08c @saidsl https://github.com/saidsl please verify and comment.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-230151054, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AExv16Rf56-yt29wV993UlgEOSyEYRS7ks5qR6sugaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[gaurav-naik]

@saidsl Hi. All fields related to Amount have now been hidden in Delivery Note print. In the previous commit, only the rate field had been hidden.

[saidsl]

@gaurav-naik

Hi, my apologies, I should have mentioned that the price on the Purchase Receipt Print should also not be present.

Is it possible to have this as an optional feature by way of using the Print Format? for both PR & DN

Thanks

[gaurav-naik]

@saidsl

Yes. Fields related to price can be hidden/shown via a checkbox in Delivery Note doctype labelled 'Print Without Amount'. This is a default feature which I discovered after looking through the doctype. I will undo the changes to the price fields from the previous commit, so that the default feature can work correctly.

Purchase Receipt does not have this feature built-in. I will try and duplicate it there. In case this approach cannot be implemented, the Print Format approach can be considered.

Is this ok?

[saidsl]

@gaurav-naik

Yes that's ok, I agree with the approach you are suggesting.

Thanks Said

[gaurav-naik]

@saidsl

Hi Said.

Now that licence no. is no longer a mandatory field, should the driver dropdown in Weighbridge Ticket now show only those drivers which have a valid licence no?

[saidsl]

Hi Gaurav,

Its fine as it is, we’re currently doing a live run and will update soon on a few things

Regards Said

On 1 Aug 2016, at 3:20 PM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

@saidsl https://github.com/saidsl Hi Said.

Now that licence no. is no longer a mandatory field, should the driver dropdown in Weighbridge Ticket now show only those drivers which have a valid licence no?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-236517886, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv12TTnZT4JHNf-o5jiRhfDa05LwQ7ks5qbaxEgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[saidsl]

Hi Gaurav,

Can you please check on your end if you had ensure that duplication validation has been enabled for all docs from the WBT.

For example, It seems I am getting duplicate Delivery Notes for the same Sales Invoices somehow.

Can you please ensure that once a document has been completed/submited/processed from the WBT that its no longer available. Currently they all still are even though they have been made

Thanks & Regards Said

On 1 Aug 2016, at 3:20 PM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

@saidsl https://github.com/saidsl Hi Said.

Now that licence no. is no longer a mandatory field, should the driver dropdown in Weighbridge Ticket now show only those drivers which have a valid licence no?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-236517886, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv12TTnZT4JHNf-o5jiRhfDa05LwQ7ks5qbaxEgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[gaurav-naik]

Hi Said.

I will look into the issue in an hour's time.

Thanks.

[saidsl]

And couple of things, can we show what process each WBT is at so that its clear what process is currently being done.

And in the meantime, till we finally connect to the Weighbridge Console, can we make the Time In editable

Thanks & Regards Said

On 8 Aug 2016, at 10:57 AM, Said Salameh ss@saidsalameh.com wrote:

Hi Gaurav,

Can you please check on your end if you had ensure that duplication validation has been enabled for all docs from the WBT.

For example, It seems I am getting duplicate Delivery Notes for the same Sales Invoices somehow.

Can you please ensure that once a document has been completed/submited/processed from the WBT that its no longer available. Currently they all still are even though they have been made

Thanks & Regards Said

On 1 Aug 2016, at 3:20 PM, gaurav-naik <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@saidsl https://github.com/saidsl Hi Said.

Now that licence no. is no longer a mandatory field, should the driver dropdown in Weighbridge Ticket now show only those drivers which have a valid licence no?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-236517886, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv12TTnZT4JHNf-o5jiRhfDa05LwQ7ks5qbaxEgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[saidsl]

Hi Gaurav.

Please create a backup before updating anything to the live server and please advice me prior to doing the updates. I will do back ups on my end as well.

Regards Said

On 8 Aug 2016, at 11:47 AM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Said.

I will look into the issue in an hour's time.

Thanks.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[gaurav-naik]

Hi Said.

Can you share a specific case of duplication of delivery notes?

[gaurav-naik]

@saidsl Hi Said.

Only one delivery note can be created against one weighbridge ticket. This duplication check has been implemented within Weighbridge ticket. (Clicking on Make > Delivery Note will flash a message saying that one already exists against the ticket.)

However, there is no restriction that would prevent the user from creating multiple delivery notes from a sales order which may have been made against a Weighbridge Ticket.

Would you like us to add such a restriction for Delivery Note and other documents as well?

For any document in ERPNext, multiple instances of the same document can exist in Draft form, but if one of them is submitted, the rest become invalid and cannot be submitted. The restriction would override this flow. Just letting you know.

[saidsl]

Hi Gaurav,

Please apply this for the WBT only and leave the standard duplication validation/checks/flow in place.

Thanks & Regards Said

On 11 Aug 2016, at 2:27 PM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

@saidsl https://github.com/saidsl Hi Said.

Only one delivery note can be created against one weighbridge ticket. This duplication check has been implemented within Weighbridge ticket. (Clicking on Make > Delivery Note will flash a message saying that one already exists against the ticket.)

However, there is no restriction that would prevent the user from creating multiple delivery notes from a sales order which may have been made against a Weighbridge Ticket.

Would you like us to add such a restriction for Delivery Note and other documents as well?

For any document in ERPNext, multiple instances of the same document can exist in Draft form, but if one of them is submitted, the rest become invalid and cannot be submitted. The restriction would override this flow. Just letting you know.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-239090845, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv1yVca1oxoDTSM2_v92RKg58a-KXGks5qes7jgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[gaurav-naik]

@saidsl

This validation already exists in WBT.

For instance, if a Delivery Note has already been created against a WBT, clicking on Make > Delivery Note in WBT again will display a message indicating that one already exists.

So, just to clarify, we won't be adding any duplication restrictions to other documents such as Sales Order. Is this correct?

[saidsl]

Hi Gaurav, correct, if it already exits there’s no need too.

Regards Said

On 11 Aug 2016, at 3:14 PM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

@saidsl https://github.com/saidsl This validation already exists in WBT.

For instance, if a Delivery Note has already been created against a WBT, clicking on Make > Delivery Note in WBT again will display a message indicating that one already exists.

So, just to clarify, we won't be adding any duplication restrictions to other documents such as Sales Order. Is this correct?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-239098741, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv17YJFATG_hzJsY-OFhzTULVkQ2v6ks5qetnYgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[saidsl]

Hi Gaurav,

Can you please remind/refresh my memory why a WB Settings was done and it only contains the warehouse. At the moment all incoming and outgoing are going out of raw material and I can not add another warehouse as its asking for a different company. How can we change that.

Thanks & Regards Said

On 11 Aug 2016, at 4:40 PM, Said Salameh ss@saidsalameh.com wrote:

Hi Gaurav, correct, if it already exits there’s no need too.

Regards Said

On 11 Aug 2016, at 3:14 PM, gaurav-naik <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

@saidsl https://github.com/saidsl This validation already exists in WBT.

For instance, if a Delivery Note has already been created against a WBT, clicking on Make > Delivery Note in WBT again will display a message indicating that one already exists.

So, just to clarify, we won't be adding any duplication restrictions to other documents such as Sales Order. Is this correct?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-239098741, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv17YJFATG_hzJsY-OFhzTULVkQ2v6ks5qetnYgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[gaurav-naik]

Hi Said,

Settings page is a way to set defaults and constants and make them available anywhere in the app. For WB Management, the only default required so far is the Warehouse, which is set in mandatory fields in line-items of documents like Purchase Order and Delivery Note while making them from WBT.

The idea was to have only one default warehouse, so a validation was added that allows only one warehouse for a Company. Technically this is correct.

However, to solve the the current problem, a warehouse field can be added to the WBT doctype. That way, the warehouse can be changed as required and while making documents from WBT, the warehouse would be picked up from WBT instead of picking it up directly from Settings .

Would this be suitable?

[saidsl]

HI Gaurav,

Yes that would be more suitable since there is more than one warehouse.

Regards Said

On 13 Aug 2016, at 12:12 AM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Said,

Settings page is a way to set defaults and constants and make them available anywhere in the app. For WB Management, the only default required so far is the Warehouse, which is set in mandatory fields in line-items of documents like Purchase Order and Delivery Note while making them from WBT.

The idea was to have only one default warehouse, so a validation was added that allows only one warehouse for a Company. Technically this is correct.

However, to solve the the current problem, a warehouse field can be added to the WBT doctype. That way, the warehouse can be changed as required and while making documents from WBT, the warehouse would be picked up from WBT instead of picking it up directly from Settings .

Would this be suitable?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-239489528, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv18cPycLLCjcIv-i5spw4WrM3IeByks5qfJuBgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[saidsl]

Hi Gaurav

With regards to the Warehouse issue, It would be a far better solution to use the item selected as the basis to default to the correct warehouse instead of selecting the warehouse in the WBT.

Please lets discuss before proceeding with any changes.

Regards Said

On 13 Aug 2016, at 8:18 AM, Said Salameh ss@saidsalameh.com wrote:

HI Gaurav,

Yes that would be more suitable since there is more than one warehouse.

Regards Said

On 13 Aug 2016, at 12:12 AM, gaurav-naik <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Hi Said,

Settings page is a way to set defaults and constants and make them available anywhere in the app. For WB Management, the only default required so far is the Warehouse, which is set in mandatory fields in line-items of documents like Purchase Order and Delivery Note while making them from WBT.

The idea was to have only one default warehouse, so a validation was added that allows only one warehouse for a Company. Technically this is correct.

However, to solve the the current problem, a warehouse field can be added to the WBT doctype. That way, the warehouse can be changed as required and while making documents from WBT, the warehouse would be picked up from WBT instead of picking it up directly from Settings .

Would this be suitable?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-239489528, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv18cPycLLCjcIv-i5spw4WrM3IeByks5qfJuBgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[gaurav-naik]

Hi Said,

The Default Warehouse change you requested has been made, but hasn't been released on the live server yet because of a doubt I needed to clear:

Under Buying Settings, have Purchase Receipts been made mandatory for Purchase Invoices?

(Buying Settings > Purchase Receipt Required > Yes)

If so, then a change will have to be made where the Purchase Receipt created against a WBT will be picked up and set in the Purchase Invoice being created against that WBT.

@revant

[saidsl]

Hi Gaurav,

Yes, Purchase Receipts been made mandatory for Purchase Invoices.

Regards Said

On 29 Aug 2016, at 11:08 AM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Said,

The Default Warehouse change you requested has been made, but hasn't been released on the live server yet because of a doubt I needed to clear:

Under Buying Settings, have Purchase Receipts been made mandatory for Purchase Invoices?

(Buying Settings > Purchase Receipt Required > Yes) If so, then a change will have to be made where the Purchase Receipt created against a WBT will be picked up and set in the Purchase Invoice being created against that WBT.

@revant https://github.com/revant — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-243022824, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv173TCvZqSyq7_Rik60AKAckvXLM-ks5qkk0RgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[gaurav-naik]

In that case I will make the change I mentioned and update the release later today.

[saidsl]

Ok Great, but please don’t push the change to the live server before 5pm Indonesia Time. Or if you send me the instructions I will do so later this evening from my end.

Thanks Said

On 29 Aug 2016, at 11:16 AM, gaurav-naik notifications@github.com wrote:

In that case I will make the change I mentioned and update the release later today.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gaurav-naik/andesit_karang_anyar/issues/23#issuecomment-243023598, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AExv10k6SahtSek6YwwSvqahtEhg40cCks5qkk8DgaJpZM4I8qsQ.

[gaurav-naik]

Ok. I will only push the changes on GitHub after I am done. I will also see about the instructions for pushing changes to the live server.

Thanks.