Skip to content

Stabilize planning order tracking test dates#9671

Open
attilatoury wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
private/attilatoury/fix-641448-planning-dates-main
Open

Stabilize planning order tracking test dates#9671
attilatoury wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
private/attilatoury/fix-641448-planning-dates-main

Conversation

@attilatoury

@attilatoury attilatoury commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Problem

CheckLotForLotItemPlanningWorksheetAction changes behavior as WorkDate advances through its fixed month/day scenario.

Root cause

Supply and demand dates used the current calendar year, so scenario events could become overdue while the assertion continued to expect two cancellation lines.

Fix

Place the scenario in the next calendar year and align the regenerative planning horizon with that year. Product behavior is unchanged.

The test remains in the existing disabled-test manifest; this PR deliberately does not change broader test enablement policy.

Validation

  • Editor diagnostics: clean
  • git diff --check: clean
  • One-file test-only change
  • Full runtime execution was not available locally

Related work item: ADO 641448

Fixes AB#641448

@attilatoury
attilatoury requested a review from a team July 22, 2026 15:06
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the SCM GitHub request for SCM area label Jul 22, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the Version 29.0 milestone Jul 23, 2026
// [FEATURE] [PlanningWorksheet] [Requisition Line] [Item] [Reordering Policy]
// [SCENARIO 478131] Lot By Lot Item planing with specific quantity and date combination should lead to canceled status of 2 requisition lines.
Initialize();
ScenarioYear := Date2DMY(WorkDate(), 3) + 1;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

S1 (non-blocking): Please consider exercising this scenario with early- and late-year WorkDate values and re-enabling the disabled test. The next-year dates and fixed planning horizon preserve the scenario intent; boundary execution would provide useful runtime proof.

@qasimikram qasimikram left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Using a single next-year ScenarioYear makes the dates deterministic while preserving event ordering, quantities, and the planning horizon. The change removes calendar-year drift without weakening the assertions or appearing to mask a production defect.

S1 is a non-blocking suggestion for boundary execution and re-enabling the disabled scenario.

Recommendation: Approve with Suggestions

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

SCM GitHub request for SCM area

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants