covers the case where the percentages are correct but the accumulated
sum is 100.00000000000001. two rows can never drift, since the second
reconstructs exactly as 100 - first, so the case needs three rows.
(cherry picked from commit 4afba94d1c)
# Conflicts:
# erpnext/selling/doctype/sales_order/test_sales_order.py
the total of allocated_percentage was compared to 100 with exact float
equality, so a correct allocation could be rejected when the sum drifts
in binary floating point (10.0 + 58.02 + 31.98 -> 100.00000000000001).
round the total to the field precision before comparing, in both
SellingController.calculate_contribution and Customer.validate.
(cherry picked from commit f7b2775829)
* feat: sync serial no status from stock ledger in Stock Qty vs Serial No Count report
* fix: pick last bundle move in SQL ordered by posting datetime and SLE creation
* fix: derive synced serial no status from stock ledger helper and validate sync args
When the in-memory running rate is zero, the fallback went through
get_incoming_rate, whose previous-SLE lookup matches the same
posting_datetime and can land on a sibling line of the voucher being
replayed. Replace it with get_previous_sle_of_current_voucher excluding
the current voucher, keeping the get_valuation_rate chain when no
previous entry exists. get_incoming_rate is no longer used in this
module.
Reposting a return that removes most of the stock across several lines
of the same item must keep every line at the running average and produce
identical results on a second repost. Before the fix the first repost
already drifted, seeding each line from a sibling row of the same
voucher.
During repost, a return line with recalculate_rate resolved its moving
average rate through get_incoming_rate -> get_previous_sle, which matches
posting_datetime <= and orders by creation desc. For a multi-line return
of the same item, every line shares one posting_datetime, so the query
landed on a sibling line of the same voucher whose stored valuation_rate
was still the previous repost run's output, not the rate before the
voucher.
Each repost run therefore re-seeded the voucher from its own prior
output. The error gain per run is (qty returned at the stale rate) /
(qty remaining after the return), so whenever a return removes most of
the stock the loop diverges instead of converging, alternating sign and
growing until stock_value overflows decimal(21,9) and the repost dies
with 'Out of range value for column stock_value'.
Use the in-memory running valuation rate that update_entries_after
already tracks for the warehouse at this point in the repost. It is the
authoritative pre-entry state, is immune to sibling rows, and makes the
repost idempotent. The database lookup is kept only as a fallback for a
zero in-memory rate, preserving the existing zero-rate fallback chain.
The inverse (1 / value) and intermediate-UOM branches of
get_uom_conv_factor returned raw float quotients like
0.4535922921968971, bypassing the precision the docfields now declare.
Same for the client-side back-calculation from an edited stock qty.
Round both to the UOM Conversion Factor value precision.
(cherry picked from commit ca5a673409)
The Float control parses values with the field precision, falling back
to the global float precision when the docfield declares none
(frappe ControlFloat.parse / get_precision). On a site with float
precision 2, a fetched UOM factor of 0.453592292 was written back to
the model as 0.45, silently corrupting every derived quantity by 0.8
percent. A ratio must not inherit display precision meant for
quantities, so declare the same precision 9 the UOM Conversion Factor
master already uses on every transaction-level conversion_factor
field.
(cherry picked from commit 69a35a12cb)
# Conflicts:
# erpnext/accounts/doctype/pos_invoice_item/pos_invoice_item.json
# erpnext/accounts/doctype/purchase_invoice_item/purchase_invoice_item.json
# erpnext/accounts/doctype/sales_invoice_item/sales_invoice_item.json
# erpnext/buying/doctype/request_for_quotation_item/request_for_quotation_item.json
# erpnext/manufacturing/doctype/bom_secondary_item/bom_secondary_item.json
# erpnext/selling/doctype/quotation_item/quotation_item.json
# erpnext/selling/doctype/sales_order_item/sales_order_item.json
# erpnext/stock/doctype/delivery_note_item/delivery_note_item.json
# erpnext/stock/doctype/packed_item/packed_item.json
# erpnext/stock/doctype/pick_list_item/pick_list_item.json
# erpnext/stock/doctype/purchase_receipt_item/purchase_receipt_item.json
# erpnext/stock/doctype/stock_entry_detail/stock_entry_detail.json
# erpnext/subcontracting/doctype/subcontracting_receipt_item/subcontracting_receipt_item.json
# erpnext/subcontracting/doctype/subcontracting_receipt_supplied_item/subcontracting_receipt_supplied_item.json
Covers the _add_remaining_purchase_request path: partial stock in
another warehouse is allocated as a transfer and the residual purchase
qty goes through the second rounding site.
(cherry picked from commit 75145cc72c)
The stock-UOM qty is rounded in _accumulate_so_items, but the purchase
UOM conversion divided it by the conversion factor without re-rounding,
storing values like 5738748.300863984 in mr_items.quantity. The raw
value flowed into Material Request qty and the raw materials CSV, and
make_material_request compares quantity to requested_qty with exact
float equality, so any rounding downstream left dust quantities.
(cherry picked from commit ffc515f046)
The division by conversion_factor in _adjust_required_qty_for_uom sits
directly after frappe.throw inside the same block, so it can never run.
It has been dead since commit 2a8cd05b44 (#27278) re-indented it into
the throw branch; the actual purchase-UOM conversion happens in
_material_request_item_row via _mr_purchase_conversion_factor.
(cherry picked from commit 44260b469f)
# Conflicts:
# erpnext/manufacturing/doctype/production_plan/services/material_request.py
* fix: use current batch avg rate for outward returns of batchwise valuation batches
* fix: honor zero batch average and avoid duplicate batch classification query
frm.toggle_display("update_stock", ...) unconditionally forced the
field visible based only on has_subcontracted, overwriting whatever
Customize Form had set on every refresh. OR it with the field's
original (property-setter-driven) hidden value instead.
Backport of #57818.
* feat: validate stock value and stock closing entry before period closing
(cherry picked from commit 20450bd4ec)
* fix: do not accept scoped stock closing entries as period closing prerequisite
(cherry picked from commit 359a347be2)
* feat: seed batch valuation from stock closing balance and freeze closed-period stock
(cherry picked from commit 49a127d59c)
* fix(subscription): don't reactivate a cancelled subscription
Backport of #57774 to version-16-hotfix.
set_subscription_status() unconditionally set status to Active once
there was no outstanding invoice, even if the subscription had been
intentionally cancelled. Paying off an invoice issued before
cancellation (directly, or via the Payment Entry -> refresh hook)
flipped a Cancelled subscription back to Active while cancelation_date
stayed set.
process()'s cancel_at_period_end check compared posting_date against
getdate(self.end_date), and getdate(None) returns today, so an empty
end_date was silently treated as "cancel now" on every scheduler run.
Combined with the reactivation bug, this let a cancelled subscription
toggle Cancelled -> Active on each run and generate another invoice at
the next period boundary.
Fixes#57761
* test: fix flaky test_update_bom_cost_in_all_boms via valuation reset
Backport of #56796 to version-16-hotfix.
reset_item_valuation_rate() only reconciled warehouses where the item
currently has positive stock (actual_qty > 0). get_valuation_rate()
averages Sum(stock_value)/Sum(actual_qty) across all of an item's
bins, so a negative balance left over in another warehouse by a prior
test can cancel out the reset qty and collapse the average to 0,
failing the assertion with 0.0 != 10.0.
This branch never got #56796 (it predates the frappe.get_all
refactor of this helper and still uses raw SQL), so applying the same
fix here: reconcile every warehouse with a non-zero balance, not just
positive ones.
* fix(subscription): don't let period rollover defeat cancel_at_period_end
process() can advance current_invoice_end to the next period (via
update_subscription_period(), when generating the current period's
invoice) before the cancel_at_period_end check further down runs. For
a subscription with no end_date, that check now compared posting_date
against the already-rolled-forward current_invoice_end, which is
always in the future, so cancel_at_period_end was silently never
honored.
Snapshot current_invoice_end before any rollover and use that in the
check instead, so it still targets the period that just ended.
Found via review on the version-15-hotfix backport (#57780).
---------
Co-authored-by: test <test@test.com>
fix: incorrect batch-wise valuation rate for entries with same posting datetime (#57794)
* fix: incorrect batch-wise valuation rate for entries with same posting datetime
The tie-breaker in get_batch_no_ledgers compared the bundle's creation
against the SLE's creation. These are different timelines - a bundle can
be created (drafted) much before its SLE (created at submission). For
entries sharing a posting datetime (backdated / amended vouchers), this
mis-ordered the entries against the ledger's replay order (SLE creation),
causing double counting or omission of batch qty / value and runaway
outgoing rates that no repost could heal.
Now the tie is broken using the creation of the bundle's own SLE (same
timeline on both sides). When the valuation runs through the bundle
before its SLE exists, the entry is by definition last in its timestamp
group, so all same-timestamp entries already in the ledger precede it.
* test: batch-wise valuation ordering for same posting datetime entries
Covers both tie-breaking branches of get_batch_no_ledgers:
- submission (pre-insertion) branch: same-timestamp inward at a different
rate plus a multi-row outward voucher (same item and warehouse), at
submission and after a backdated repost
- existing-SLE branch: a bundle created after its sibling's SLE, the
ordering must follow the SLE creation and not the bundle creation
Both tests fail with the previous parent.creation < sle.creation
tie-breaker and pass with the fix.
---------
Co-authored-by: rohitwaghchaure <rohitw1991@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
