Improvements concerning some details on packages


We recently introduce an issue concerning “Total Weight/Volume” displayed on package list : Issue 11036: Package weight and volume are not included in Total Weight or Total Volume - Tryton issue tracker

It appears that “Total Weight” doesn’t include packaging weight (same for volume). This weight is also used to be printed on labels for shipping service DPD, UPS, …

We suggest to have 2 fields weights : Gross Weight and Net Weight.

Cédric’s response was “we need first to analyse which one is needed for shipping

So, we would like to have your advices, commentary about such case.

In our case (Saluc), we often use “Gross Weight” for shipping in Europe but in case of international shipping, both weights (Gross and Net) are needed for Customs purpose.

Second remark is more an idea of feature: on the package form (Shipment Out), it would be also nice to have a function field with the Total Weight of the whole shipment (until now, weight is only on packages).

And last remark is about package list displayed when using parent-child packages… sometimes you see only parent packages sometimes you see parent and children in the list. Could it be possible to have something to distinct clearly children from parent ?

I think we must also be precise about what is Net Weight. For example does it include the extra weight of the package?

So if net weight is needed for customs, I think we should add it.

Maybe it will be more flexible to add the sum attribute on weight field on the list view.

I thought it was not supported to use a tree view on a One2Many but stock_package module is using it.
I’m wondering if the problem does not come from the usage of a Function for root_packages. I think it could be replaced by a real One2Many with a filter.
If there are still issue with it. I guess we will have to conclude that tree view are not supported on One2Many and replace it with a list.

Indeed it is supported but the problem is that the first column is hidden (because it is the shipment) and so the expander is also not visible. We should put the expander to the first visible column.

1 Like