3f4fdeffcea5d6c8e829cb281e717d0829f6647b
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
gsinghpal
|
4161f04b0f |
feat(plating): hard-required fields on WO start — operator + bath + tank
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>
|
||
|
gsinghpal
|
bbbd222b89 |
feat(plating): close 2 workflow gaps surfaced by workforce E2E simulation
Built a comprehensive simulator (scripts/fp_e2e_workforce.py) that
role-plays 10 employees driving an order quote → invoice using real
operator timers (button_start / button_finish with elapsed time.sleep).
Initial run: 31 PASS / 2 WARN / 0 FAIL exposed two gaps that would
hurt a real shop:
**Gap 1 — Thickness readings never reached the CoC**
The Fischerscope readings inspectors take during post-plate inspection
had no path to the CoC. The cert came out empty, useless for AS9100
or aerospace audits.
Fixes:
- New tablet endpoint `/fp/shopfloor/log_thickness_reading` so the
inspector can record one reading at a time during the inspection WO
(auto-numbers, defaults the operator, supports microscope image).
- mrp_production._fp_mark_done_post_actions now bulk-links any
orphan thickness readings (those with production_id=mo.id but no
certificate_id) to the freshly-created CoC. So inspectors can log
during inspection AND the cert PDF picks them up automatically.
**Gap 2 — Operator queue leaked other people's work + simulator missed it**
fusion.plating.operator.queue.build_for_user pulled EVERY ready /
in-progress WO regardless of assignment. Tom would see John's masking
WO in his "Up Next" list — bad for aerospace traceability where you
want strict per-operator accountability.
Fix: build_for_user now filters MRP WOs by
`(x_fc_assigned_user_id == user_id OR x_fc_assigned_user_id == False)`.
Operators see their own assigned tasks first, plus any unassigned
tasks anyone can grab. Other operators' assigned WOs no longer leak
through.
Also caught: simulator was using wrong field name on the queue model.
Fixed and added a "queue isolation" check that verifies no operator
sees another operator's assigned WOs.
After fixes: **39 PASS / 2 WARN / 0 FAIL** (out of 41 checks).
Remaining WARNs are both expected behaviour:
- bake-window auto-create: this coating doesn't require_bake_relief
(the recipe has an inline Oven step instead)
- first-piece gate: same — coating-driven, only fires when needed
Areas validated end-to-end:
- quote → SO with PO# carried into client_order_ref
- SO confirm → MO + portal job auto-created
- receiving qty prefill + accept
- 9 WOs generated from recipe + assigned to specific operators
- All 9 WOs ran with real elapsed timers + 17 productivity records
across 4 distinct operators
- MO done triggers CoC auto-issue with 5 thickness readings linked,
319 KB rich PDF, customer-slug filename
- Delivery auto-created with prefilled date + driver + CoC link
- Delivery delivered, 2 chain-of-custody entries
- Invoice posted (NOT auto-paid)
- All 5 customer notifications fired (so_confirmed +
parts_received + mo_complete + shipped + invoice_posted) with
correct attachments
- Portal job → complete, SO workflow_stage → invoicing
- Chemistry log persisted, operator proficiency tracked
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|