Need to improve pricing

[quote] Can we refine the checkbox that if a warehouse or supplier is selected, then take the price from this warehouse or from this supplier. [/quote] Here it’s a little unclear - if you have a supplier selected in the rule and it fits, then its price is taken and an extra charge is made on it. Is it the same with the warehouse? It is not clear what will be the difference between the price selection and the current one

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: [quote] Can we refine the checkbox that if a warehouse or supplier is selected, then take the price from this warehouse or from this supplier. [/quote] Here it’s a little unclear - if you have a supplier selected in the rule and it fits, then its price is taken and an extra charge is made on it. Is it the same with the warehouse? It is not clear what will be the difference between the price selection and the current one [/quote] The bottom line is that, for example, I give priority to the rule with the margins I need, but I want the purchase in the card to be in the warehouse specified by this rule. But this does not work, because if the goods are still in another warehouse, the balance of which is credited earlier, then the box takes the price from another warehouse. We know that the box selects the balance using the FIFO method, that is, from the very first arrival to the latest, which is not suitable for us, since we need to take warehouse 1 and the price from warehouse 1, and now if I put a filter in the warehouse rule, then this rule will not be taken into account at all, since the box will take the price from another warehouse. I want the priority of the rule to determine where to take the price from, and not by the early balance. Perhaps you need to add a setting additionally to the [file]4924[/file] setting?

Well, what if we finalize the warehouses in the rules and refactor the price recalculations - it will take up to 30 hours...

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: Well, what if we finalize the warehouses in the rules and refactor the price recalculations - it will take up to 30 hours... [/quote] We already have warehouses in the rules [file]4977[/file] It is necessary to make sure that the price is taken from the warehouse and according to the rule

[quote] We already have warehouses in the rules It is necessary to make sure that the price is taken from the warehouse and according to the rule [/quote] yes, but this doesn’t make it any easier - after all, the logic there is simple - it takes the old remainder, selects a rule for it and calculates and now it turns out you need to do a recalculation as for suppliers - sort through the rules, get the remainder for each, consider what is a priority - this is a lot of refactoring - I would even estimate it closer to 40 hours

[quote] yes, but this doesn’t make it any easier - after all, the logic there is simple - it takes the old remainder, selects a rule for it and calculates and now it turns out you need to do a recalculation as for suppliers - sort through the rules, get the remainder for each, consider what is a priority - this is a lot of refactoring - I would even estimate it closer to 40 hours [/quote] We have such functionality https://cabinet.b2bframes.com/admin/shop/margin-periods/add/ - it won't be able to pull margins from the directory? Maybe we can write down here so that he takes the price from the warehouse? Or can we make it possible in the rule to take the price for a mark-up with the house of the field? Only first you need to run the action in the product "Calculate the average price of posting ..." [file]5106[/file] and refine this action so that it takes the price by FIFO. It must be less than 40 hours exactly.

[quote] We have such functionality https://cabinet.b2bframes.com/admin/shop/margin-periods/add/ - it won't be able to pull margins from the directory? Maybe we can write down here so that he takes the price from the warehouse? [/quote] It seems not, only the indicated prices. This was kind of done for a hotel project, where every day there were different prices for rooms. I don’t think that we will shove your logic with warehouses here - the same in fact, but in a different place) [quote] Or can we make it possible in the rule to take the price for a mark-up with the house of the field? Only first you need to launch the action in the product "Calculate the average price of posting ..." and refine this action so that it takes the price by FIFO. It must be less than 40 hours exactly. [/quote] Well, don’t do a recalculation of prices (if you take the price from the additional field), but somehow periodically update the goods so that the actions are launched (or modify such an action once an hour) and set the action to copy the additional field to the price. We will not fence such crutches in recalculation of prices. After finalizing the action "Calculate the average price of posting ..." - so in action we are talking about the average price, but take not the average? Well, you can do it - but how to determine the priority warehouse?

TS will look like this: For the action "Calculate the average price of taking the product and write it in an additional field" https://take.ms/PZy5q Improve the ability to specify warehouse priorities: - Add a tick "Take the price of posting according to the FIFO method (instead of the average price)" - If the checkbox is checked - show 2 columns: Warehouse (from the list of warehouses), Priority (manually specify an integer, the higher the number, the higher the priority). - Making the setting "Add priority setting" - when clicked, another line is added with a warehouse and a priority As a result, we set, for example, 2 warehouses Warehouse 1 - Priority 2 Warehouse 2 - Priority 1 It should work like this - if there is a balance in a warehouse with the highest priority (in this case, Warehouse 1), then we take the price from it until the goods on it run out according to FIFO If the goods ended in Warehouse 1, then we start from the earliest arrival to pull the price from Warehouse 2 and so on for all priorities. We do not need to divide anything in the price, we take only the price at which the goods are credited, that is, do NOT apply summation and division in variables [file]5140[/file] The rest - we make a reference book, write the condition for the product + margin values into it, pull these values into the product card according to the condition, and then calculate each price level using the formula. ___________________________________ We already have 40+ actions when saving a product card, which can lead to a long processing of goods + add actions for calculating prices (5 actions) and filling from the directory (5 actions) If we make changes like this: 1) For the action "Calculate the value using the formula and write to the specified field" https://take.ms/e1wSt add the ability to specify multiple lines to record different values in different fields https://take.ms/lv9FU as in the setting below [file]5141[/file] 2) For the action "Fill in an additional field based on additional fields and reference data" https://take.ms/g1eNC Add the ability to take several values from the directory and fill in different product fields https://take.ms/tOsZl Does this optimize the processing time for all actions? With these improvements, I can reduce the number of actions to 10-20. Rate it please?

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: I do not think that it will give any increase in speed. You will make the same number of miscalculations - at least within the framework of one action, at least within the framework of several. [/quote] at least it will not be necessary to do the same check about 5-7 times, but only once, and then do the calculations, the same with reference books, do not constantly look for a reference book and conditions, but find and get all the values \u200b\u200b1 time. If it doesn't make any difference, what can be done? [quote] Sukhanitsky Andrey Integrator Premium partner Integrator CRM wrote: As a result, we set, for example, 2 warehouses Warehouse 1 - Priority 2 Warehouse 2 - Priority 1 It should work like this - if there is a balance in a warehouse with the highest priority (in this case, Warehouse 1), then we take the price from it until the goods on it run out according to FIFO If the goods ended in Warehouse 1, then we start from the earliest arrival to pull the price from Warehouse 2 and so on for all priorities. You don’t need to divide anything in the price, we take only the price at which the goods are credited, that is, do NOT apply summation and division in variables [/quote] what if the same setting with priorities for warehouses, only we take the average price, as now

[quote] at least it will not be necessary to do the same check about 5-7 times, but only once, and then do the calculations, the same with reference books, do not constantly look for a reference book and conditions, but find and get all the values \u200b\u200b1 time. If it doesn't make any difference, what can be done? [/quote] Do multi-adjustment into the action "Calculate the value according to the formula and write it to the specified field" - what is the value? I don't seem to see any checks in your example. For "Fill in an additional field based on additional fields and reference data" make multi-setting which field to fill in - hours 3

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: Do multi-adjustment into the action "Calculate the value according to the formula and write it to the specified field" - what is the value? I don't seem to see any checks in your example. [/quote] I'm talking about these conditions [file]5161[/file] I have 5-6 actions for this condition

Well, you want a multi-adjustment by calculating the formulas - there is only a miscalculation and where do you need to fill it in?

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: Well, you want a multi-adjustment by calculating the formulas - there is only a miscalculation and where do you need to fill it in? [/quote] Yes, it turns out that once we checked the fulfillment of the condition and calculated all the formulas, if there is a multi-setting, and now in each action we check - we count, we check - we count ... I thought it affected the speed.

[quote] Yes, it turns out that once we checked the fulfillment of the condition and calculated all the formulas, if there is a multi-setting, and now in each action we check - we count, we check - we count ... I thought it affected the speed. [/quote] Well, if you count in milliseconds, then yes. Make multi-setting calculation in action - 6h

thanks for the consultation