Many writing above from old times, summary what i’m understanding is: system doesn’t check Lot name. when user enter lot manually (not generated) - this cause not clear data.

still reproducible in 7.1z

steps to reproduce

1. create new purchase order

2. create 1st line, select product : Fertilizer#50

3. open attribute dialog - enter lot no = Lot-123 - OK it. (system save record assign m_lot_id+1) save it

4. create 2nd line, select product : Fertilizer#50 again and repeat #3 - ISSUE: idempiere allow enter same LotNo Lot-123 and save as new m_lot_id+2 - Later when in warehouse company reusing LOT then for example 2-3 lots with diff ID will be used with same name.

For me this is critical for companies where LOTS are defined by vendor delivery (let say - external lot no management) - another critical use case: import of lots based on. Lot No.

Solution: Check Duplicity when save LOT with same name - on manual enter.

[15/07/14 13:07:59] Norbert Bede: i create test scenarious
[15/07/14 13:08:05] Norbert Bede: result is the follow
[15/07/14 13:08:09] Norbert Bede: Select existing record cases
case 1. leave unchecked “Show All” listing ASI’s - with existing onhandqty
case 2. mark checked “Show All” - listing ASI’s previously has storage but now are on 0qty
case 3. ASI’s created but not document history (doc draft too/never onhand qty) doesn’t listed << THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM
[15/07/14 13:11:01] Norbert Bede: solution 1. so case 1 could be covered by case 1
[15/07/14 13:11:39] Norbert Bede: solution 2. create a checkbox as "Show All " >> "Show new Lots" is another option
[15/07/14 13:11:57] Norbert Bede: that is minimalistic approach/change
[15/07/14 13:12:01] Norbert Bede: as you want
[15/07/14 13:12:08] Norbert Bede: hope my test help
[15/07/14 13:27:50] Hiệp lê quý: ah. it's grest, with make new checkbox "Show new Lots"
[15/07/14 13:27:56] Hiệp lê quý: thanks for test.

it is attribute set with LOT tracking - attributes can be as part of the set (instancable and not instancable too) - BUT attributes doesnt make sense. importnat is set has LOT tracking enabled.

i want to focus just on the fact. the system enable to enter by user a new lot, add lot with existing lot no and save it as a new lot with new ASI. that means you will have 2 ASI ID with same lot No. IMHO its not correct.

please open a new ticket for "Select exits record" improvement. i will comment it.

norbert

this request is for which type attribute set or all?
+ attribute set without attribute, just set lot, i mean Fertilizer Lot in demo
+ attribute set just with attributes have Instance Attribute = false + lot
+ attribute set contain attributes have Instance Attribute = true + lot

other case i want confirm.
as i tell "Select exits record" just show "attribute set instance" have on-hand of product with this ASI > 0,
=> let this case.
in some condition user must input two line for one product.

• input record 1, make new asi

• input record 2, by we don't "Select exits record"
  because "Select exits record" is need improve.
  wdyt?

i have take a look to colin thread. but for this context i mean important fact is only: my example is Instant Attribute - Lot in this case. I know non instancable attributes works. (e.g. we used for car spare parts to use alternative part catalog numbers - we define them on product window.

related to your issue in googleforum i mean you had the same issue at the end. the "select existing record" showed you 2 _id and same description this cause uggly screen. worst should be if you lead picking by FIFO (warehouse management in my case) where your picking failure such cases.

related to on hand qty: i mean my issue is before receive material to the newly created lot (asi). Its normal first select product, then create LOT, save line complete document with a required qty.

Thus mean - we need to denied ASI creation with same description - prevent duplicity. After this you will never have as you had in your example. (note: lot is stored in separate table m_lot and LOT shortname (ABC-123) is copied to common attributesetinsance description field.

At the end the question is my request valid not only for LOT but S/N and other instancable cases.
norbert