User audit caught: in the workforce E2E run we had no idea which bath /
which tank ran the job. For aerospace traceability that's a deal-
breaker. Add a validation gate on mrp.workorder.button_start so
operators can't tap START without the data the shop floor MUST capture.
**Three new pieces on mrp.workorder:**
1. `_fp_is_wet_process()` — best-effort "does this WO involve a
chemistry bath?" check. Three signals in priority order:
a. A bath is already linked → definitely wet
b. The workcenter's FP work-centre supports a wet process family
(plating, pre/post-treatment, strip, passivation)
c. WO name contains a wet-process keyword (plat, nickel, chrome,
anodiz, zinc, etch, clean, rinse, strip, passivat, electroless…)
The keyword fallback is needed because most existing recipes have
no process_type_id set on their operation nodes.
2. `_fp_check_required_fields_before_start()` — runs before the
existing certification check. Rules:
• Every WO needs an assigned operator (x_fc_assigned_user_id).
Without it, productivity records can't be attributed and the
proficiency tracker has no employee to credit.
• Wet WOs additionally need x_fc_bath_id + x_fc_tank_id. So we
know exactly which chemistry bath ran the job and which physical
tank it sat in.
Raises a clear UserError listing the missing fields if any.
3. `x_fc_requires_bath` (compute, non-stored) — surfaces the wet check
to the form view so bath + tank fields render with `required=`.
**View changes:**
- `x_fc_assigned_user_id` is now `required="1"` on the form
- `x_fc_bath_id` + `x_fc_tank_id` use `required="x_fc_requires_bath"`
→ red asterisk only when the WO is actually wet
**Simulator updates** (scripts/fp_e2e_workforce.py):
- Hannah now explicitly assigns bath + tank to wet WOs during planning,
AND pre-issues operator certifications for the bath's process type
(real shop manager workflow).
- Two negative tests added that PROVE the gates fire:
• Test 1: strip the operator → button_start raises "missing Assigned Operator"
• Test 2: strip bath/tank on a wet WO → button_start raises "missing Bath/Tank"
**Final E2E:** 42 PASS / 2 WARN / 0 FAIL out of 44 checks.
Both remaining WARNs (bake-window auto-create, first-piece gate) are
expected behaviour — those are coating-driven and the test coating
intentionally doesn't trigger them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
