[14.0][FIX] stock_request: Remove route_ids fields from requests

[victoralmau]

Remove route_ids field from requests

It is not correct to set the route_ids field with the product routes, you must be able to select any route (similar to what is shown in the product form view).

Please @pedrobaeza and @carlos-lopez-tecnativa can you review it?

@Tecnativa TT50610

[pedrobaeza]

/ocabot merge minor

[OCA-git-bot]

Hey, thanks for contributing! Proceeding to merge this for you.
Prepared branch 14.0-ocabot-merge-pr-2179-by-pedrobaeza-bump-minor, awaiting test results.

[OCA-git-bot]

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 0baba00. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

[rousseldenis]

Didn't see this. @JordiBForgeFlow @LoisRForgeFlow What do you think ? There is still #2184

[LoisRForgeFlow]

@rousseldenis Thanks for the pointer.

[LoisRForgeFlow]

@victoralmau @pedrobaeza I do not agree at all with this change, you tag removing a field and changing functionality as a fix... I don't think this is correct. I have processes using routes in stock request that are not product selectable...

[pedrobaeza]

Let's focus the discussion on the other opened PR.

[hparfr]

So... this PR should be reverted ?

[max3903]

Yes. How is the inventory user supposed to decide how to fulfill a stock request if there is no route?

Like the first comment says "if we must be able to select any route", the field should remain. Maybe with a different filter.

[pedrobaeza]

The field is there, @max3903. What has been removed is the other supporting field with the "allowed routes". Now every route present in the product is able to be selected in the request.

[LoisRForgeFlow]

So... this PR should be reverted ?

From my PoV, yes, this one should be removed to keep things aligned. @pedrobaeza is it ok?

[pedrobaeza]

OK if you want to revert it. We are already going to 16 and our patch has converted to custom.

[LoisRForgeFlow]

Hi all, revert being done in #2198.