[12.0][IMP] edi_oca: don't consider exchange records if jobs have been created

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

If two _check_output_exchange_sync are called consecutively, one after the other, maybe due to _execute_next_action method, the following error happens:

Both _check_output_exchange_sync calls detect the same exchange records, and both create same jobs. The first batch of jobs will be processed but the second ones will fail due to check of state = "new".

[OCA-git-bot]

Hi @etobella, @simahawk,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

@simahawk what's your opinion on this?

[simahawk]

We should avoid having this kind of relations w/ jobs.
Please see OCA/queue#573

As for the solution on how to prevent the issue to happen... IMO we should rely on
the id key https://github.com/OCA/edi-framework/blob/16.0/edi_oca/models/edi_exchange_record.py#L591

And we should leverage the job chaining for inbound records too to speed up processing.

FYI there's a way to find jobs for a record OCA/edi-framework#93

Regarding the error itself: an alternative would be to simply let the job fail gracefully (meaning set it as done).

BTW I was thinking that we probably need a specific state for when a record is waiting for a job... not sure tho.

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

@simahawk is it acceptable now? It became simpler.

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

@simahawk

Regarding the error itself: an alternative would be to simply let the job fail gracefully (meaning set it as done).

Yeah, but silencing possible errors it's bad coding. I prefer avoiding from happening the specific detected ones, and letting the open door to detect other errors.

BTW I was thinking that we probably need a specific state for when a record is waiting for a job... not sure tho.

A new state between "new" and the others, for example "queued" would be nice, but I am afraid that it's complicated, as we should review all the flows and adapt code. I prefer the boolean solution, it's simpler.

[MiquelRForgeFlow]

@simahawk could you take a look?

[github-actions]

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.