[16.0][ADD] stock_account_move_reset_to_draft: New module

[victoralmau]

New module

Please @pedrobaeza and @carlosdauden can you review it?

@Tecnativa TT51201

[yostashiro]

Looks like we should converge the ideas. OCA/account-financial-tools#1946 :)
CC: @rousseldenis

[pedrobaeza]

This one seems more complete, handling all the SVLs adjustments.

[yostashiro]

Why "multi" in the module name?

[pedrobaeza]

Because you can reset to draft "multiple" times. The standard only allows one.

[yostashiro]

The standard only allows one.

I don't see it this way. You can reset a bill to draft multiple times with the standard as long as there is no adjustment SVL, no?

[pedrobaeza]

Yes, correct, but we are referring if you change the price multiple times. That's difficult to be reflected in the technical name, but if you have a nicer name, we are all ears.

[yostashiro]

My preference is stock_account_move_force_reset_to_draft but it's not a strong one. I was just curious.

[carlosdauden]

Code LGTM

[rousseldenis]

Looks like we should converge the ideas. OCA/account-financial-tools#1946 :) CC: @rousseldenis

Yes, I think this one is better in terms of reliability and avoid to enforce additional protections on prices changes or ...

[rousseldenis]

Yes, correct, but we are referring if you change the price multiple times. That's difficult to be reflected in the technical name, but if you have a nicer name, we are all ears.

I'm also in favor of not making 'multi' in the name. As, if you do it once, you can dot it more. That's the same principle for all existing modules that reset objects to draft state. But you can add it to USAGE which is a good approach IMHO.

[pedrobaeza]

Then which name?

[rousseldenis]

stock_account_move_force_reset_to_draft

Preference for stock_account_move_reset_to_draft which means what it does.

[pedrobaeza]

OK, let's rename it, but first please do the review for performing all the possible changes at the same time.

[yostashiro]

Can you please check my suggestion?

[yostashiro]

There are certain cases where we shouldn't be allowing the reset-to-draft operation, and a few considerations should be added.

Suggested change

	res = super().button_draft()
	for item in self.sudo().filtered(
	lambda x: x.is_inbound
	and any(line.stock_valuation_layer_ids for line in x.line_ids)
	):
	for line in item.line_ids.filtered("stock_valuation_layer_ids"):
	svls = line.stock_valuation_layer_ids
	value = sum(svls.mapped("value"))
	if not float_is_zero(
	value, precision_rounding=line.currency_id.rounding
	):
	svls[0].copy({"value": -value})
	return res
	for move in self.sudo():
	if not move.is_inbound:
	continue
	for line in move.line_ids.filtered("stock_valuation_layer_ids"):
	origin_svls = line.stock_valuation_layer_ids.stock_valuation_layer_id
	if len(origin_svls.stock_valuation_layer_ids.account_move_line_id.filtered(lambda x: x.parent_state == "posted")) > 1:
	raise UserError(_("Invenotory valuation records are intertwined for %(line_name)s.", line_name=line.display_name))
	for origin_svl in origin_svls:
	if origin_svl.quantity != origin_svl.remaining_qty:
	raise UserError(_("The inventory has already been (partially) consumed for %(line_name)s.", line_name=line.display_name))
	svls = origin_svl.stock_valuation_layer_ids
	value = sum(svls.mapped("value"))
	if not float_is_zero(
	value, precision_rounding=line.currency_id.rounding
	):
	origin_svl.remaining_value -= value
	revert_svl = svls[0].copy({"value": -value})
	revert_svl._validate_accounting_entries()
	product = line.product_id.with_company(move.company_id.id)
	if product.cost_method == "average":
	product.sudo().with_context(disable_auto_svl=True).write(
	{"standard_price": product.value_svl / product.quantity_svl}
	)
	return super().button_draft()

The suggested code has survived my functional test, although I may have missed some corner cases.

I did the following steps with FIFO and AVCO products and checked the valuation at each step.

• PO for a product: 2 pcs at EUR10
• Receive 1 pc and create a backorder
• Receive 1 pc
• Create a bill for 2 pcs at EUR12 and post
• Reset the bill to draft
• Change the bill content to 1 pc at EUR15 and post
• Create another bill for 1 pc at EUR8 and post
• Reset the first bill to draft -> User error to prevent valuation inconsistencies
• Delivery 1 pc

[victoralmau]

I am trying to add this change and creating a test with the use case you describe but there are several considerations:

• I failed to reproduce the error in the step “Reset the first bill to draft -> User error to prevent valuation inconsistencies”.
• I think that the _validate_accounting_entries() method should not be called.
• I think changing the standard_price is something this module should not do.

In general I think it is adding too much logic to something that should not have it, you should be able to change to draft as many times as you want (at least that's my opinion).

[yostashiro]

@victoralmau Thanks for checking.

• I failed to reproduce the error in the step “Reset the first bill to draft -> User error to prevent valuation inconsistencies”.

I think the error should be reproducible if you follow the steps exactly as described.

• I think that the _validate_accounting_entries() method should not be called.

The inventory / interim receipt account balance will be incorrect if you don't do this.

• I think changing the standard_price is something this module should not do.

Why not? The value of the outgoing shipment will be incorrect without this, if the shipment is processed before the next update of standard_price (repost of the bill or a receipt of the product).

In general I think it is adding too much logic to something that should not have it, you should be able to change to draft as many times as you want (at least that's my opinion).

It can't be that simple, unfortunately, and that's why there has been no proper "fix" by Odoo until today after this comment odoo/odoo#118687 (comment). Inventory valuation and account balances will go wrong with the current code.

[victoralmau]

I have added all the changes you indicate, but in the test this step Reset the first bill to draft -> User error to prevent valuation inconsistencies does not work.

[rousseldenis]

@victoralmau @pedrobaeza Could you check @yostashiro comments ?

[victoralmau]

Renamed to stock_account_move_reset_to_draft and applied the changes suggested in #1813 (comment) (personally I think it is adding logic that this module should not have).

[yostashiro]

personally I think it is adding logic that this module should not have

@victoralmau Thanks for the update but I'm not sure where your comment is coming from. If an implementation risks compromising data integrity/consistency, we must do our best to prevent that. No question about it, IMO.

[gdgellatly]

@pedrobaeza @victoralmau I added some comments here OCA/account-financial-tools#1947 (comment) about an alternative approach which is strictly speaking less accurate, but more tolerant of intervening transactions (e.g. valuation already fixed, sold though etc) and avoids editing svl's. I make no claim that it is better or worse, just food for thought.