[16.0] [FIX] sale_order_line_date: remove TypeError

[LuciaMarchalFactorLibre]

FL-556-5216

There is no checking that commitment_date has a correct value, only that it is set.
File "sale-workflow/sale_order_line_date/models/sale_order_line.py", line 40, in write

    def write(self, vals):
        res = super().write(vals)
        moves_to_upd = set()
        if "commitment_date" in vals:
            for move in self.move_ids:
                if move.state not in ["cancel", "done"]:
                    moves_to_upd.add(move.id)
        if moves_to_upd:
            self.env["stock.move"].browse(moves_to_upd).write(
                {"date_deadline": vals.get("commitment_date")} # <-----------------------
            )
        return res

Translating an empty value is not done correctly in the stock module
File "/odoo-base/odoo-server/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py", line 698, in write

if 'date_deadline' in vals:
    self._set_date_deadline(vals.get('date_deadline')) # <---------------------

File "/odoo-base/odoo-server/addons/stock/models/stock_move.py", line 539, in _set_date_deadline

if move.date_deadline:
    delta = move.date_deadline - fields.Datetime.to_datetime(new_deadline) # <------------------------

[mmequignon]

Why not doing everything in the if block, and checking that "commitment_date" is correctly set only once?

if vals.get("commitment_date"):
    moves_to_upd = set()
    for move in self.move_ids:
         [...]
    if moves_to_upd:
         [...]

[OCA-git-bot]

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

[StefanRijnhart]

Same as #3364, except that one includes a test, and it handles empty values better it seems.

[StefanRijnhart]

Next time you add a fix, please check any open PR for the same module.

[ljsalvatierra-factorlibre]

Same as #3364, except that one includes a test, and it handles empty values better it seems.

Yes, but a different solution.

[StefanRijnhart]

Same as #3364, except that one includes a test, and it handles empty values better it seems.

Yes, but a different solution.

I'm sorry if you feel me closing this PR was too swift or unjust. Do you want to argue in favor of your solution?

[ljsalvatierra-factorlibre]

Same as #3364, except that one includes a test, and it handles empty values better it seems.

Yes, but a different solution.

I'm sorry if you feel me closing this PR was too swift or unjust. Do you want to argue in favor of your solution?

Oh don't worry. What do you think @LuciaMarchalFactorLibre ? Please review #3364

[StefanRijnhart]

OK, thanks! BTW #3364 is merged now, but if you want you can review my port to 18 in #3565.

[LuciaMarchalFactorLibre]

I think it is good to leave this PR closed because #3364 is more complete and is already merged