Relation update

[SchrodingersGat]

• Ref: Related parts - purpose unclear #8416
• Adds "note" field to PartRelated model
• Implement new table column in PUI

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for inventree-web-pui-preview ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	afb0f2f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/inventree-web-pui-preview/deploys/673cf9f9e470220009760275
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-8524--inventree-web-pui-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 100 (🟢 up 1 from production) Accessibility: 86 (no change from production) Best Practices: 100 (no change from production) SEO: 78 (no change from production) PWA: - View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.63%. Comparing base (2bc6ddb) to head (afb0f2f).
Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/backend/InvenTree/part/api.py	76.47%	4 Missing ⚠️
src/frontend/src/tables/part/RelatedPartTable.tsx	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8524      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.52%   84.63%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files        1176     1178       +2     
  Lines       53555    53580      +25     
  Branches     2023     2025       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        45265    45345      +80     
+ Misses       7785     7709      -76     
- Partials      505      526      +21     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	85.96% <83.33%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
pui	69.36% <33.33%> (+0.57%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[wolflu05]

We might could also overengineer this by adding a second table like relation types which can be selected. That way we can keep this field much clear/filter/… by common relations types. E.g. show all additional equipment relations, … But that’s just a thought

[matmair]

Using a state would probably be user-friendly as custom states would make it easy to extend the selection without adding new interfaces that need management functionality and discovery.
That could be added as a separate PR to keep this one in the imminent 0.17.0

[wolflu05]

Using a state would probably be user-friendly as custom states would make it easy to extend the selection without adding new interfaces that need management functionality and discovery. That could be added as a separate PR to keep this one in the imminent 0.17.0

@matmair should we create an issue to track this then? Maybe you could do that with you ideas about the custom states? I'm not so familiar with the new state system.

[turist79]

Using a state would probably be user-friendly as custom states would make it easy to extend the selection without adding new interfaces that need management functionality and discovery. That could be added as a separate PR to keep this one in the imminent 0.17.0

Do you mean the same "states" used for stock items or some other feature?

[turist79]

We might could also overengineer this by adding a second table like relation types which can be selected. That way we can keep this field much clear/filter/… by common relations types. E.g. show all additional equipment relations, … But that’s just a thought

Keeping both Note and Relation type as separate table (dictionary) is the best solution here. I have never seen an example when organizing things from the start wasn`t beneficial later. The Relation type thing colud contain: direction flag (A->B, or bi-directional), optional conversion rate. This approach would allow smooth implementation of a lot of usefull things actually.

Of course, just my 2c again :)

[matmair]

@turist79 happy to review PRs

[turist79]

@turist79 happy to review PRs

sorry, but what does it mean?

[matmair]

sorry, but what does it mean?

I am happy to review functioning and tested code that you submit for inclusion implementing your complicated suggestion