inventree / InvenTree

Open Source Inventory Management System
https://docs.inventree.org
MIT License
4.32k stars 780 forks source link

[FR] Incoming inspection step for parts #2903

Open IsThisNameGoodEnough opened 2 years ago

IsThisNameGoodEnough commented 2 years ago

Is your feature request the result of a bug? No

Problem Currently the receiving page in Inventree allows a user to either accept parts into inventory or discard through other flags (e.g. rejected, lost, etc). In most companies I've worked with there's typically an interim "incoming inspection" step which allows visibility that parts are in the building, but not yet released for production use. Incoming inspection will typically generate a report that will trigger receiving, rejected, etc. The report is then attached to the lot or range of serial numbers for parts that are accepted, or to the PO if parts are rejected.

It looks like the closest feature in Inventree is the "tests" feature, although it's limited to only trackable parts. Is there a way to incorporate this for non-trackable parts?

Suggested solution Ideally a flag could be set for a part that denotes whether an incoming inspection is required. The incoming inspection could be handled via a test template. Having the incoming inspection flag set would trigger the test during the receiving process, with the report being attached to both the purchase order and received lots.

Do you want to develop this? Sorry, no one wants to see my attempts at coding.

matmair commented 2 years ago

Hi there @IsThisNameGoodEnough This sound like a good example for the currently proposed Process feature - maybe look at that proposal. I would like to channel a lot of workflows into that as I imagine it being able to export form one instance and apply to another (maybe with some kind of workshop like steam workshop for sharing those).

matmair commented 2 years ago

2817

SchrodingersGat commented 2 years ago

I think that this does fit in with an expansion of the existing "tests" framework

matmair commented 1 year ago

I think this should be implemented as a workflow in accordance with the additions for #2817