[jira] Commented: (OFBIZ-313) FIFO stock reservation not being honoured

["Jacopo Cappellato (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-313?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12497380 ] 

Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-313:
-----------------------------------------

Ray,

by the way, even if the name of the product store's field could create confusion, the FIFO rule should be applied to the inventory and not to the orders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFO_and_LIFO_accounting

I mean that the system, with a FIFO method, should try to reserve and ship the oldest inventory items before.

Jacopo


> FIFO stock reservation not being honoured
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OFBIZ-313
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-313
>             Project: OFBiz (The Open for Business Project)
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: product
>    Affects Versions: SVN trunk
>            Reporter: David E. Jones
>         Assigned To: Ray Barlow
>
> This issue is from the old Undersun Jira server, submitted by Ray Barlow and described as below:
> The default catalogue data suggests that orders should be prioritised on the FIFO priniciple for stock allocation. So when order1 comes in it should be allocated all the stock it requires for completion before order2 and stay that way.
> I'm ignoring the business complications that can arise around picking order2 first as it is being held up by one item order1 has and order1 is being held up because of another item etc.
> The FIFO allocation fails under the following scenario: (clean database against SVN seed data)
> 1) Place an order for 10 x WG-9943-S4. This allocates all ATP stock.
> 2) Create some more stock against WG-9943-S4, I've done 10/10 on ATP/QOH
> 3) Now create another order 10 x WG-9943-S4, which again should allocate all the stock.
> 4) Both orders should be ready to complete, nothing on back order.
> 5) In the order manager view order WS10000 (order1) and click on the inventory link, mine is showing as id 10000
> 6) Add an invariance to remove some stock i.e. -2/-2 ATP/QOH as damaged.
> 7) Back to the order view and now WS10000 is on back order. This means order2 has jumped the que and the balance routine did not honour the FIFO prinicple! WS10000 should get priority over the stock allocated to order2.
> PS: When I clicked on "Find Order" and show all records, it displayed 1-2 of 2, but in the list there was only order number WS10000 visible, I'll investigate further, but it appears the view is showing one to few!

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.