QC PACKING - can't edit

[litzvi]

Can't be edited.

[litzvi]

localhost-1632282310611.log

[mei309]

public void setPoWeights(TransactionProcess<?> process) { removeOldWeightedPos(process.getId()); List poWeights = getProcessRepository().findTransactionWeightedPos(process.getId(), ItemGroup.PRODUCT); addPoWeights(poWeights, process, true);
}

[mei309]

this dose not work for qcPacking because its not product

[litzvi]

If you do it regardless of pos. meaning treat the used items as Material used. e.g. Sugar, salt etc.

1. Easier to pack, no need to choose the pos in advance, just pack qc hold (or floor etc.) -
2. I think is the way they do it.

Might cause some errors when adding and in report, I'll fix them as they occur.

[mei309]

i still dont think this is a good idea since we have a lot of pos with qchold and it will be all the time therefor it will be very hard for them to do it

[mei309]

like loading makes sense but then also the packing way is ok especially to get their review, therefor we only need to fix the function i put

[litzvi]

i still dont think this is a good idea since we have a lot of pos with qchold and it will be all the time therefor it will be very hard for them to do it

correct about the problem - we need to clean up the old ones or find a way to search through it. perhaps we can show only for a range of dates?

[litzvi]

like loading makes sense but then also the packing way is ok especially to get their review, therefor we only need to fix the function i put

the numbers don't add up. seems like a bunch of pos add up to a few bags of QC. should ask Ahron/DAVID TOMORROW. They also don't show the pos for QC in the reports.

[mei309]

the point of the program is that they can track everything therefor i do think like loading or packing is suitable but i will wait for their answer

[litzvi]

you are correct. he wants by po

[litzvi]

So it's by po. I fixed to get also ItemGroup.QC. - STILL CAN'T EDIT SOMTIMES (ATTACHED) localhost-1632389212731.log

[litzvi]

He also said they only use roasted stuff not the waste from 'cleaning'. We need to solve the dropdown shouldn't show all old data -I'll open a separate issue for it. (issue 601)

[litzvi]

He also said they only use roasted stuff not the waste from 'cleaning'.

Only QC hold and only from roasting and packing. Fortunately you can do it by setting QC hold item and appropriate Functionalities.

[mei309]

So it's by po. I fixed to get also ItemGroup.QC. - STILL CAN'T EDIT SOMTIMES (ATTACHED) localhost-1632389212731.log

the itemGroup is WASTE and not QC sorry

[mei309]

i think its better if we dont treat qc hold as waste then i would not need to hard code the item id in the functions below but for now can you create below function? objectTableReader.findAvailableInventoryPoCodes(new ProductionFunctionality[]{ProductionFunctionality.ROASTER, ProductionFunctionality.PACKING}, ItemGroup.WASTE, itemId);

[mei309]

and in raw qc i think we should change the storage to waste amounts like all processes

[mei309]

only after the changes i will succeed in checking if it actually works

[litzvi]

So it's by po. I fixed to get also ItemGroup.QC. - STILL CAN'T EDIT SOMTIMES (ATTACHED) localhost-1632389212731.log

the itemGroup is WASTE and not QC sorry

changed

[litzvi]

i think its better if we dont treat qc hold as waste then i would not need to hard code the item id in the functions below but for now can you create below function? objectTableReader.findAvailableInventoryPoCodes(new ProductionFunctionality[]{ProductionFunctionality.ROASTER, ProductionFunctionality.PACKING}, ItemGroup.WASTE, itemId);

com.avc.mis.beta.service.WarehouseManagement.findAvailableInventoryPoCodes(ProductionFunctionality[], ItemGroup, Integer)

p.a. all these functions are in WarehouseManagement

[litzvi]

you are correct, hard code the item is a wrong.

We can treat QC hold as 'QC'. All we need is to add it to in qc items (instead of waste). You allow them to do it in the process (btw if you do that they can pack QC directly in the process, if they happen to do that).

[litzvi]

and in raw qc i think we should change the storage to waste amounts like all processes

don't understand

[mei309]

you are correct, hard code the item is a wrong.

We can treat QC hold as 'QC'. All we need is to add it to in qc items (instead of waste). You allow them to do it in the process (btw if you do that they can pack QC directly in the process, if they happen to do that).

it wouldn't help because then it will give all qc items so i will still need to hard code it

[mei309]

maybe having like wasteQc group will be better

[mei309]

and its working now and i added a checkbox to choose if we want to pack all qc waste and not only roasted

[litzvi]

you are correct, hard code the item is a wrong. We can treat QC hold as 'QC'. All we need is to add it to in qc items (instead of waste). You allow them to do it in the process (btw if you do that they can pack QC directly in the process, if they happen to do that).

it wouldn't help because then it will give all qc items so i will still need to hard code it

all qc? where? you mean in 'qc packing'? you can control by production functionality. anyway, since they are choosing by po it won't be overwhelmed.

[litzvi]

maybe having like wasteQc group will be better

Make a group for one scenario? ugly and dangerous. imo better to hard code the item.

[litzvi]

and its working now and i added a checkbox to choose if we want to pack all qc waste and not only roasted

from roasting and packing process Ahron said you don't need.

[mei309]

and its working now and i added a checkbox to choose if we want to pack all qc waste and not only roasted

from roasting and packing process Ahron said you don't need.

it will be a request a little later. but anyway i dont like not giving the option so i did it like in packing, if it will disturb them i will remove it

[mei309]

and i hard coded the item for now

[litzvi]

and its working now and i added a checkbox to choose if we want to pack all qc waste and not only roasted

from roasting and packing process Ahron said you don't need.

it will be a request a little later. but anyway i dont like not giving the option so i did it like in packing, if it will disturb them i will remove it

in front end i think it's good, but up to you.