fix: validation considers moving average by default instead of set va…

[mihir-kandoi]

Reference support ticket

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Selling price validation now runs per-item and per-row, deriving valuation_rate from each line's incoming_rate (when present) and comparing it to base_net_rate with per-item precision. Batch-based valuation_rate_map and batch/warehouse valuation lookups were removed. last_purchase_rate_in_sales_uom conversion uses per-item precision. Validation messages now reference a dynamic Selling Settings label and a generic link to Selling Settings. An integration test test_validate_selling_price was added to Delivery Note tests (appears duplicated).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ❌ 3

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 2 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title partially relates to the changeset. It mentions 'validation considers moving average' but is cut off and doesn't fully explain the actual changes involving per-item valuation rate handling and selling price validation messaging updates.	Complete the title and clarify the main change. Consider: 'fix: use per-item incoming rate for selling price validation instead of moving average' or similar.
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	The description only provides a support ticket reference without explaining any aspect of the changeset or its objectives.	Add details about what the fix addresses, such as the per-item valuation logic changes and validation behavior improvements.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@erpnext/controllers/selling_controller.py`:
- Around line 334-340: The comparison currently uses item.base_net_rate <
item.incoming_rate without numeric coercion; update the check to use flt() on
both sides (e.g., flt(item.base_net_rate) < flt(item.incoming_rate)) so the
comparison is consistent with the earlier flt() usage (see other comparison
flt(item.base_net_rate) < flt(last_purchase_rate_in_sales_uom)) and keep the
throw_message(...) call unchanged; locate this in the same validation block
where item.base_net_rate, item.incoming_rate, and throw_message are used.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.25%. Comparing base (2d6b43f) to head (eac1c06).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop   #52246   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    79.24%   79.25%           
========================================
  Files         1168     1168           
  Lines       122699   122695    -4     
========================================
+ Hits         97237    97239    +2     
+ Misses       25462    25456    -6     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
erpnext/controllers/selling_controller.py	84.15% <100.00%> (+0.32%)	⬆️
.../stock/doctype/delivery_note/test_delivery_note.py	99.91% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@erpnext/stock/doctype/delivery_note/test_delivery_note.py`:
- Around line 2866-2881: The test test_validate_selling_price incorrectly sets
dn.items[0].stock_qty (which is recomputed) so it has no effect; change the
assignment to update dn.items[0].qty (or adjust the conversion factor) before
calling dn.save so the incoming rate recalculation is driven by the persisted
quantity; keep references to create_delivery_note, dn.save and
IntegrationTestCase.change_settings as-is.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@erpnext/controllers/selling_controller.py`:
- Around line 541-543: The condition directly accesses self._action and can
raise AttributeError on flows where _action isn't set; update the guard to use a
defensive lookup (e.g., replace direct self._action usage in the condition that
currently reads "self._action in ['save', 'submit'] or not d.incoming_rate or
self.is_internal_transfer()" with a safe access like getattr(self, '_action',
None) (or self.get('_action') if this object implements .get) so the expression
becomes robust in non-save/submit flows while preserving the checks against
d.incoming_rate and self.is_internal_transfer().

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@erpnext/controllers/selling_controller.py`:
- Around line 307-308: The get_link_to_form call for the Single DocType is
missing the docname parameter, causing inconsistent navigation; update the
get_link_to_form invocation used with Selling Settings to include the docname by
changing get_link_to_form("Selling Settings") to get_link_to_form("Selling
Settings", "Selling Settings") so it matches other usages (e.g., the one at line
822) and ensures correct navigation for the Single DocType.