[14.0][MIG] sale_stock_line_sequence

[OriolMForgeFlow]

Standard migration
Taking into account the refactor done in !2603

[AaronHForgeFlow]

Edit: nevermind, is the refactor. Can't do functional test in runboat

[AaronHForgeFlow]

Code review LG

[rousseldenis]

/ocabot migration sale_stock_line_sequence

[rousseldenis]

/ocabot migration sale_stock_line_sequence

[rousseldenis]

@OriolMForgeFlow Thanks for this. FYI, you can embed your dependency PR here in order to get tests running and runboat for functional testing.

https:/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Use-temporary-reference%28s%29-to-another-pull-request%28s%29

[rousseldenis]

@OriolMForgeFlow @AaronHForgeFlow

I've tested on runboat and if the order of lines change should change the order of invoice lines, that does not work:

Sale Order after change:

Invoice after sale order change:

[rousseldenis]

@OriolMForgeFlow @AaronHForgeFlow

I've tested on runboat and if the order of lines change should change the order of invoice lines, that does not work:

Sale Order after change:

Invoice after sale order change:

Oops wrong PR. @OriolMForgeFlow This is for #2603

[OriolMForgeFlow]

Thank you for your feedback, @rousseldenis!

The lines in the invoice remain unchanged as we are not utilizing the sequence field, which was causing some issues. Instead, we have introduced a new field called "related_so_sequence," designed as a Char field (SO12345/1 - so_name/sequence). This choice is based on the consideration that an invoice can be generated from multiple Sales Orders. As a result, we cannot use this field to sort the order lines.

Here's an example:

[AaronHForgeFlow]

Functional review, Works as expected.

[LoisRForgeFlow]

LGTM!

[rousseldenis]

Code review

[rousseldenis]

/ocabot merge nobump

[OCA-git-bot]

On my way to merge this fine PR!
Prepared branch 14.0-ocabot-merge-pr-2607-by-rousseldenis-bump-nobump, awaiting test results.

[OCA-git-bot]

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 0c409be. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️