Skip to content

[Main]- Error The Bin Content does not exist.Not able to post an Inventory Pick for Assemble to Order#9297

Draft
DeepsShukla wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
bugs/Bug-640983-Error-BinContent-does-not-exis-Not-able-to-post-InventoryPick
Draft

[Main]- Error The Bin Content does not exist.Not able to post an Inventory Pick for Assemble to Order#9297
DeepsShukla wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
bugs/Bug-640983-Error-BinContent-does-not-exis-Not-able-to-post-InventoryPick

Conversation

@DeepsShukla

@DeepsShukla DeepsShukla commented Jul 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Workitem-Bug 640983: [ALL-E] Error: "The Bin Content does not exist...." Not able to post an Inventory Pick for Assemble to Order items

Fixes AB#640983

Issue: "The Bin Content does not exist...." Not able to post an Inventory Pick for Assemble to Order items
Cause: CheckQuantityInBinContentForTracking iterates all pick lines and calls WMSMgt.CheckWhseJnlLine (which validates existing bin content) on ATO lines — even though ATO output bin content is only created during assembly posting, not before the pick.
Solution: Skip ATO pick lines (if not WarehouseActivityLine2."Assemble to Order") in the bin-content validation loop

@DeepsShukla DeepsShukla requested a review from a team July 10, 2026 05:25
@DeepsShukla DeepsShukla marked this pull request as draft July 10, 2026 05:26
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the Version 29.0 milestone Jul 10, 2026
NormalItemLotNo: Code[20];
OutputLotNo: Code[20];
begin
// [FEATURE] [AI test 0.4]

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.

$\textbf{🟡\ Medium\ Severity\ —\ Style} \quad \color{gray}{\texttt{\small Iteration\ 1}}$

The new test's [FEATURE] tag reads '[AI test 0.4]' instead of naming the actual feature area, unlike every other test in this codeunit (e.g.

'[SCM] [Assembly] [Assembly to Order]', '[Item Tracking] [Pick Worksheet]', '[Bin]'). This looks like an unedited placeholder left over from generating the test and breaks the file's established [FEATURE] tagging convention used for test discovery/reporting.

Recommendation:

  • replace it with feature tags describing the scenario, e.g. '[SCM] [Assembly] [Assembly to Order] [Bin] [Item Tracking]'.
Suggested change
// [FEATURE] [AI test 0.4]
// [FEATURE] [SCM] [Assembly] [Assembly to Order] [Bin] [Item Tracking]

👍 useful · ❤️ especially valuable · 👎 wrong - reply with why

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot PR Review

Iteration 1 · Outcome: completed

Knowledge source: https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality@822cae1b2771ac25f665f73369f69093bd4fd630

Findings by domain

Findings split into Knowledge-backed (cite a BCQuality article) and Agent (the agent's own judgement, no matching BCQuality rule).

Domain Findings Knowledge-backed Agent Inline Fallback
Style 1 1 0 1 0

Totals: 1 knowledge-backed · 0 agent findings.

Orchestrator pre-filter (13 file(s) excluded)

  • layer-disabled (knowledge) : 13 file(s)

Findings produced by the Copilot CLI agent against BCQuality at 822cae1b2771ac25f665f73369f69093bd4fd630. Reply 👎 on any inline comment to flag false positives.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant