Open aitbw opened 5 years ago
I think that might be an implementation detail best left up to the stores themselves, nevertheless, it is obnoxious that we allow the user to get to a point in which a non-present count on hand value stops them.
What do you think is the best UX?
I think that might be an implementation detail best left up to the stores themselves
+1, I think the same
What do you think is the best UX?
Based on the work done in #2960 and #2977, the obvious choice would be to disable said input when the Track inventory levels
and Propagate all variants
flags are disabled. Nevertheless, if you're not tracking inventory levels (let's say you have a store that only sells digital products), I don't see why you'd need more than one stock location.
Yes, it's not ideal.
I also can't figure out a scenario when this makes sense but I did see stores that needed crazy customizations so I expect someone could use this. An example could be a store that has a lot of inventory and does not care about tracking since they always has the product available. They could have 2 stock locations and ship products from the closest one (with a custom made Stock Splitter) to save on shipment costs. Could this make sense?
My first thought for a possibile solution is:
I think this would also fix an issue when you enter a number in the Count On Hand and click on + (Create)
. The UI allow you to change the form fields until you reload the page:
+ (Create)
before reloading the page:+ (Create)
after reloading the page:An example could be a store that has a lot of inventory and does not care about tracking since they always has the product available. They could have 2 stock locations and ship products from the closest one (with a custom made Stock Splitter) to save on shipment costs. Could this make sense?
Yeah @kennyadsl, that makes sense —it's an edge case but seems reasonable.
defaulting the Count On Hand value to 0 when track inventory is false (or even always?)
+1 to always use 0
as the default value
hiding/removing the Count On Hand input (which is useless) when track inventory is false
+1
hiding/removing the Back Orderable checkbox when track inventory is false (which also does not make sense to be editable since when inventory is not tracked I don't see a reason to use it)
+1
That said, I was wondering if maybe there's something we should do with the Restock Inventory
and Check Stock on Transfer
flags as well since they seem so closely linked with the Track inventory levels
one.
That said, I was wondering if maybe there's something we should do with the Restock Inventory and Check Stock on Transfer flags as well since they seem so closely linked with the Track inventory levels one.
Like disable them when Track inventory levels
is not checked?
I think it's a good idea but I'm not 100% sure this is reflected in code everywhere. We should check better before changing that and this could be done/discussed into another PR/Issue maybe?
Sounds good to me @kennyadsl
Steps to reproduce
config.track_inventory_levels
tofalse
Propagate all variants
flag disabledProduct Stock
tab for any productCount on hand
input empty+ (Create)
iconExpected behavior
Actual behavior
Count on hand
input requires a number to complete the actionSystem configuration
Extensions in use:
solidus_auth_devise
I think this issue is up for debate since I can't think of a real-life scenario where you would need more than one
Stock Location
when you're not tracking inventory levels :thinking: but I'm willing to hear opinions on the matter.