[Refactor] Custom states

[SchrodingersGat]

This PR is an update to the "custom states" functionality, to improve usability and extend user interface integration

• Closes Custom Stock Status cannot be set from Stock Actions #7990
• Closes Custom Stock Status filter does not work #8612

Tasks

• Improved back-end validation
• Improved form management for creating / editing a custom state
• Display proper custom state in PUI for individual detail views
• Display proper custom state in PUI for tables
• Ensure matching logical state is set when transitioning to a custom state
• Check that "custom" state can only be set to appropriate values
• Add custom states to the demo dataset - Add some custom states demo-dataset#86
• Extend existing unit testing to ensure that all new validations checks are tested
• Add playwright tests for custom states (after demo dataset is updated)
• Ensure table filtering works with custom state values - Custom Stock Status filter does not work #8612

Future Work / Extensions

• Revisit removing "model" field from CustomState table (or at least making it optional)
• Update documentation on custom states

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for inventree-web-pui-preview ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	702209d
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/inventree-web-pui-preview/deploys/6770667dfbfbfd0008e39dcf
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-8438--inventree-web-pui-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 100 (no change from production) Accessibility: 86 (no change from production) Best Practices: 100 (no change from production) SEO: 78 (no change from production) PWA: - View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[SchrodingersGat]

@matmair I have been looking at the implementation of custom states and there are a few areas which I think can be cleaned up a bit.

One question I have is: what is the value of the model (ContentType) field on the InvenTreeCustomUserStateModel model? We already map to a status group, which implies a given model type. I don't see the value of having a separate field (which the user has to know how to fill in) - which can conflict with the specified statuscode.

I would suggest that we remove the model field and rely on the reference_status field to perform this functionality

[matmair]

@SchrodingersGat there is only an implicit link between status groups and models. When you start shipping custom models in plugins and using custom states there you need some way to prefilter possible selections.

[SchrodingersGat]

I don't understand the use case here - in what circumstance would you want to make a custom state which overrides a BuildStatus code, but links to a SalesOrderShipment model? (for example)

[matmair]

The use case is enabling order when you have 40+ state groups and need to filter to manage them. If you see no value you can remove this and I will patch my custom fork for support, it seems anyway like I will never be able to use upstream.

There is no reliable link between a state named "SomeModelStatus" and the model "SomeModel" - especially with possible model name collisions between (3rd party) apps.

[wolflu05]

(Just a question, no opinion here, I just want to understand your design choice)

Do you have any example scenario where custom states and models are in a relationship other than n:1? (E.g. the same custom state is assigned to multiple models. If not, doesn't that say that each custom state has only one model, which implicitly means there is a reliable link between a state and the model.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.29197% with 54 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.09%. Comparing base (c582ca0) to head (702209d).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/backend/InvenTree/generic/states/states.py	81.01%	15 Missing ⚠️
src/frontend/src/forms/CommonForms.tsx	0.00%	13 Missing ⚠️
src/backend/InvenTree/generic/states/api.py	75.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/backend/InvenTree/stock/models.py	76.92%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/backend/InvenTree/common/validators.py	28.57%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/frontend/src/hooks/UseStatusCodes.tsx	40.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
.../frontend/src/components/render/StatusRenderer.tsx	60.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
src/backend/InvenTree/common/models.py	95.23%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/backend/InvenTree/generic/states/validators.py	91.66%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/frontend/src/forms/StockForms.tsx	0.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
... and 1 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8438      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.30%   85.09%   -0.22%     
==========================================
  Files        1175     1178       +3     
  Lines       51560    51739     +179     
  Branches     2076     2085       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits        43984    44027      +43     
- Misses       7045     7187     +142     
+ Partials      531      525       -6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	86.91% <85.71%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
pui	68.67% <44.44%> (-0.96%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[matmair]

Implicit is the key here; there is no reliable way to map a custom state to a model, thus automation that needs to make this link will not be able to function anymore if it is removed. I do not rely on implicit mapping in my business-critical LoB
apps.

[codecov]

Bundle Report

Changes will increase total bundle size by 4.22kB (0.06%) ⬆️. This is within the configured threshold ✅

Detailed changes

Bundle name	Size	Change
pui_v1-esm	6.74MB	4.22kB (0.06%) ⬆️