Skip to content

[6114][IMP] product_plm_import: set lot sequence prefix from ESC ID on product creation#140

Open
nobuQuartile wants to merge 4 commits into16.0from
6114-imp-product_plm_import
Open

[6114][IMP] product_plm_import: set lot sequence prefix from ESC ID on product creation#140
nobuQuartile wants to merge 4 commits into16.0from
6114-imp-product_plm_import

Conversation

@nobuQuartile
Copy link
Contributor

@nobuQuartile nobuQuartile force-pushed the 6114-imp-product_plm_import branch 3 times, most recently from 435b393 to eadd28c Compare February 26, 2026 07:32
… sequence prefix

Allow lot_sequence_prefix in plm.product.mapping to reference the PLM
record's ESC ID via '{esc_code}' placeholder (e.g. '{esc_code}').
This enables per-product prefix resolution at creation time.
- Add constrains on lot_sequence_prefix to raise ValidationError when
  the format string is invalid (e.g. unknown placeholder)
- Fix return -> continue in _send_plm_import_notification() so records
  without notified partners do not skip remaining records
- Clarify _create_product() to explicitly return on both success and
  failure paths
@nobuQuartile nobuQuartile force-pushed the 6114-imp-product_plm_import branch from eadd28c to 53b26b4 Compare February 26, 2026 07:48
@nobuQuartile nobuQuartile marked this pull request as draft February 26, 2026 08:30
@nobuQuartile nobuQuartile force-pushed the 6114-imp-product_plm_import branch from ac06dc2 to d475ecc Compare February 26, 2026 08:31
- Add constrains on lot_sequence_prefix to raise ValidationError when
  the format string is invalid (e.g. unknown placeholder)
- Fix return -> continue in _send_plm_import_notification() so records
  without notified partners do not skip remaining records
- Clarify _create_product() to explicitly return on both success and
  failure paths
- Add tests for lot_sequence_prefix validation and create_products()
  prefix resolution from ESC ID
@nobuQuartile nobuQuartile force-pushed the 6114-imp-product_plm_import branch from d475ecc to cba6d4d Compare February 26, 2026 08:32
@nobuQuartile nobuQuartile marked this pull request as ready for review February 26, 2026 09:57
Copy link
Member

@yostashiro yostashiro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code review. LGTM. 👍

Comment on lines +1 to +3
# Copyright 2026 Quartile Limited
# License AGPL-3.0 or later (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
# Copyright 2026 Quartile Limited
# License AGPL-3.0 or later (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl).

Copy link
Contributor

@AungKoKoLin1997 AungKoKoLin1997 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review: LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants