[16.0][IMP] stock_inventory_discrepancy: add configuration for enabling discrepancy check

[AungKoKoLin1997]

This PR aims to resolve the compatibility issue between this module and other inventory adjustment related modules.
Related: #1711

@qrtl QT4850

[yostashiro]

For early returns.

Suggested change

	# Get the system parameter configuration
	param = (
	self.env["ir.config_parameter"]
	.sudo()
	.get_param("stock_inventory_discrepancy.inventory_discrepancy_enable")
	)
	if self.env.context.get("skip_exceeded_discrepancy", False) or param == "0":
	return super().action_apply_inventory()
	if self.env.context.get("skip_exceeded_discrepancy", False):
	return super().action_apply_inventory()
	inventory_discrepancy_enable = (
	self.env["ir.config_parameter"]
	.sudo()
	.get_param("stock_inventory_discrepancy.inventory_discrepancy_enable")
	)
	if inventory_discrepancy_enable == "0":
	return super().action_apply_inventory()

[yostashiro]

Code review.

[kanda999]

Code review: LGTM

[AungKoKoLin1997]

@OCA/stock-logistics-warehouse-maintainers
Can you please review this PR?

[OCA-git-bot]

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

[rousseldenis]

Code review.

@LoisRForgeFlow @JordiBForgeFlow

[JordiBForgeFlow]

@AungKoKoLin1997 From a usability perspective I think that it would be much better to add a setting in res.config.settings to enable / disable it, and document it in the readme of the module. A checkbox in res.config.settings would then update the parameter that you have proposed.

[LoisRForgeFlow]

@AungKoKoLin1997 From a usability perspective I think that it would be much better to add a setting in res.config.settings to enable / disable it, and document it in the readme of the module. A checkbox in res.config.settings would then update the parameter that you have proposed.

I agree

[yostashiro]

@AungKoKoLin1997 From a usability perspective I think that it would be much better to add a setting in res.config.settings to enable / disable it, and document it in the readme of the module. A checkbox in res.config.settings would then update the parameter that you have proposed.

@JordiBForgeFlow @LoisRForgeFlow The purpose of this update was more to pass tests from another module rather than providing additional config option to users, and as such I personally thought updating res.config.settings wouldn't be necessary (wasn't sure if there would be some users who'd like to disable the feature after installing the module with config setting when there are already other ways to bypass the check with adjusting location/warehouse settings). Having said that, if the community opts for having a field in res.config.settings, why not!

[rousseldenis]

The purpose of this update was more to pass tests from another module rather than providing additional config option to users

Be careful. Adding code just for tests should trigger 'warnings'. But, that said, adding a configuration that is accessible for users is always a good process to enable/disable a feature.

For several reasons:

• To be able to disable process in case of bug or... without technical requirements.
• To be able to deploy a solution without enabling it immediately

[yostashiro]

Thank you. @AungKoKoLin1997 Can you please follow up to add a configuration?

[AungKoKoLin1997]

@LoisRForgeFlow @JordiBForgeFlow I added the configuration from a usability perspective. Can you please review it?

[yostashiro]

Suggested change

	help="Enable to show line discrepancies in inventory and block validation "
	"if the discrepancy exceeds the threshold.",
	help="Block validation of the inventory adjustment if discrepancy exceeds the threshold.",

Since the setting doesn't affect the UI.

[yostashiro]

Same as above.

[yostashiro]

Code review. 👍

[AungKoKoLin1997]

@rousseldenis @LoisRForgeFlow @JordiBForgeFlow
I have update the PR and I believe it is in good state.
Can you please review?

[AungKoKoLin1997]

@kanda999 Could you please review?

[AungKoKoLin1997]

@rousseldenis I changed the approach like we did for OCA/stock-logistics-workflow#1760.
Can you please review?

[yostashiro]

Code review.

[yostashiro]

I'd suggest putting them in alphabetical order unless there is a reason not to.