[19.0][MIG] purchase_stock_tier_validation: Migration to 19.0 by yordyl · Pull Request #63 · OCA/tier-validation

yordyl · 2026-09-11T12:27:55Z

Migration of purchase_stock_tier_validation to 19.0.

The module last existed at 16.0 (in OCA/purchase-workflow) and was never
carried forward through the 17.0 migration there — no deletion commit, it
simply wasn't ported. Its sibling *_tier_validation modules were relocated
to OCA/tier-validation during the 17.0/18.0 era, so this migration follows
suit and lands it here instead of its historical repo.

No functional changes: _make_po_get_domain (the stock.rule hook this
module extends) and review_ids (from base_tier_validation) are both
unchanged in 19.0, so the module's logic still applies as-is.

Changes beyond the version bump:

manifest version 19.0.1.0.0, links point at this repo
README regenerated from readme/*.md fragments
pyproject.toml added (whool build backend)
tests modernized: BaseCommon + new_test_user, tagged
post_install/-at_install (avoids a module-load-order hazard when other
installed modules add required fields to res.partner/res.company)
test fixed for two 19.0 core changes: procurement.group no longer exists
as a model (its Procurement namedtuple and run() moved to stock.rule),
and purchase.order.line.product_uom was renamed product_uom_id

Tested locally: installs cleanly alongside base_tier_validation and
purchase_tier_validation, test suite green (0 failed, 0 error(s) of 1 tests).

Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 5.5

BhaveshHeliconia

the commit history doesn't look correct here. I can see commits from purchase_requisition_tier_validation that seem unrelated to purchase_stock_tier_validation module.

BhaveshHeliconia · 2026-09-18T10:30:17Z

You shouldn't add the AI agent as a co-author. It should be mentioned as assisted by AI according to the OCA AI policy: https://github.com/OCA/.github/blob/master/AI_POLICY.md

bosd · 2026-10-05T16:41:51Z

@yordyl
Some administrative commits, from translations could be squashed.
please, Check https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Merge-commits-in-pull-requests#mergesquash-the-commits-generated-by-bots-or-weblate for details.

yordyl · 2026-10-05T17:15:51Z

@bosd @BhaveshHeliconia Thank you for your comments. This should fix the problems you noted :)

bosd · 2026-10-05T17:57:00Z

@bosd @BhaveshHeliconia Thank you for your comments. This should fix the problems you noted :)

@yordyl Sadly, no, as the AI removed all the commits and kept only the migration one.

BhaveshHeliconia · 2026-10-06T05:48:12Z

@bosd @BhaveshHeliconia Thank you for your comments. This should fix the problems you noted :)

You need to keep the commit history on top of the migration commit.

…alidate when procuring

Module last existed at 16.0 in OCA/purchase-workflow and was never carried forward through the 17.0 migration. Relocated alongside its sibling *_tier_validation modules, now living in OCA/tier-validation. _make_po_get_domain (purchase_stock's StockRule hook) and the review_ids field from base_tier_validation are both unchanged in 19.0, so the module logic still applies as-is. Changes: - version bumped to 19.0.1.0.0 - website/links point at OCA/tier-validation (new home) - README regenerated from readme/*.md fragments - pyproject.toml added (whool build backend) - tests modernized: BaseCommon + new_test_user, tagged post_install/-at_install - tests fixed for 19.0 core changes: procurement.group no longer exists (Procurement and run() moved to stock.rule), purchase.order.line.product_uom renamed product_uom_id Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 5.5 Assisted-by: Claude:claude-sonnet-5-5

yordyl · 2026-10-06T07:51:03Z

@bosd @BhaveshHeliconia third time's the charm?

BhaveshHeliconia · 2026-10-07T07:18:56Z

 msgid ""
 msgstr ""
-"Project-Id-Version: Odoo Server 16.0\n"
+"Project-Id-Version: Odoo Server 19.0\n"


No need to update the version manually; it will be updated automatically by the OCA bot.

@BhaveshHeliconia thanks. I wasn't sure what you meant here: this line is the Project-Id-Version header of the .pot, generated by Odoo's export, and I haven't changed the manifest version by hand beyond the 19.0.1.0.0 that a [MIG] commit sets. Did you mean the manifest version, or something else in this file?

@yordyotl Yes, I meant the .pot file itself (purchase_stock_tier_validation/i18n/purchase_stock_tier_validation.pot).

In OCA, .pot files and their headers (Project-Id-Version) are generated and updated automatically by the oca-ci bot post-merge (via automated [UPD] Update <module>.pot commits).

To keep migration PRs minimal and avoid translation/Weblate conflicts, we usually don't include .pot file updates in migration commits. Could you please revert/discard the changes to the .pot file from this PR?

Other than that, the test updates look great! Thanks!

BhaveshHeliconia · 2026-10-07T07:20:47Z

+        )
+
+        # Common models
+        cls.test_partner = cls.env["res.partner"].create({"name": "Partner for test"})


Suggested change

cls.test_partner = cls.env["res.partner"].create({"name": "Partner for test"})

No need to create a res.partner record when using BaseCommon, as it is already provided by the base class.

BhaveshHeliconia · 2026-10-07T07:21:15Z

+                "name": "Test Scrap Component 1",
+                "type": "consu",
+                "is_storable": True,
+                "route_ids": [(6, 0, [route_buy])],


Suggested change

"route_ids": [(6, 0, [route_buy])],

"route_ids": [Command.set([route_buy])],

BhaveshHeliconia · 2026-10-07T07:21:32Z

+                "is_storable": True,
+                "route_ids": [(6, 0, [route_buy])],
+                "seller_ids": [
+                    (0, 0, {"partner_id": cls.test_partner.id, "price": 20.0})


Suggested change

(0, 0, {"partner_id": cls.test_partner.id, "price": 20.0})

Command.create({"partner_id": cls.test_partner.id, "price": 20.0})

BhaveshHeliconia · 2026-10-07T07:21:49Z

+                    (
+                        0,
+                        0,


Suggested change

(

0,

0,

Command.create(

…r and Command Review feedback: reuse the res.partner provided by BaseCommon instead of creating one, and use Command.set/Command.create instead of raw tuples. Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 5.5

BhaveshHeliconia · 2026-10-21T06:06:59Z

@yordydotl squash the last commit into migration commit.

OCA-git-bot added series:19.0 mod:purchase_requisition_tier_validation Module purchase_requisition_tier_validation mod:purchase_stock_tier_validation Module purchase_stock_tier_validation labels Sep 11, 2026

BhaveshHeliconia suggested changes Sep 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

yordyl force-pushed the 19.0-mig-purchase_stock_tier_validation branch from f144a05 to da72e22 Compare October 5, 2026 17:07

OCA-git-bot removed the mod:purchase_requisition_tier_validation Module purchase_requisition_tier_validation label Oct 5, 2026

BernatPForgeFlow and others added 16 commits October 6, 2026 09:12

[13.0][ADD] purchase_stock_tier_validation: Exclude RFQs pending to v…

5cd9745

…alidate when procuring

[UPD] Update purchase_stock_tier_validation.pot

2de907c

[UPD] README.rst

048072f

[IMP] purchase_stock_tier_validation: pre-commit execution

84c7001

[MIG] purchase_stock_tier_validation: Migration to 14.0

8d151f7

[UPD] Update purchase_stock_tier_validation.pot

4e7b985

[UPD] README.rst

7dd6b07

[MIG] purchase_stock_tier_validation: Migration to 15.0

e7363f1

[UPD] Update purchase_stock_tier_validation.pot

957febd

[UPD] README.rst

dbae8d2

[UPD] README.rst

7d559d8

[IMP] purchase_stock_tier_validation: pre-commit stuff

6f29177

[MIG] purchase_stock_tier_validation: Migration to 16.0

68b987d

[UPD] Update purchase_stock_tier_validation.pot

3cb2195

[BOT] post-merge updates

50356af

yordyl force-pushed the 19.0-mig-purchase_stock_tier_validation branch from da72e22 to 7baf0fd Compare October 6, 2026 07:13

bosd approved these changes Oct 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

BhaveshHeliconia suggested changes Oct 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

[IMP] purchase_stock_tier_validation: tests use the BaseCommon partne…

2a904f6

…r and Command Review feedback: reuse the res.partner provided by BaseCommon instead of creating one, and use Command.set/Command.create instead of raw tuples. Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 5.5

	"route_ids": [(6, 0, [route_buy])],
	"route_ids": [Command.set([route_buy])],

	(0, 0, {"partner_id": cls.test_partner.id, "price": 20.0})
	Command.create({"partner_id": cls.test_partner.id, "price": 20.0})

+                                  (
+,
+,

-                    (
-,
-,
+                    Command.create(

Conversation

yordyl commented Sep 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

BhaveshHeliconia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BhaveshHeliconia commented Sep 18, 2026

Uh oh!

bosd commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

yordyl commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

bosd commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

BhaveshHeliconia commented Oct 6, 2026

Uh oh!

yordyl commented Oct 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BhaveshHeliconia commented Oct 21, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

yordyl commented Sep 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading