Improving the Multi-level BOM Creator — a set of gaps + willingness to contribute PRs

1

I’ve been using the Multi-level BOM Creator for real multi-level BOMs (moulded parts with polymer raw materials) and hit a consistent set of gaps. I’ve written up a design + phased plan and I’m willing to contribute the work as PRs — but before investing, I’d like to check whether the team sees these as in-scope and would accept PRs for them.

The gaps (each verified against erpnext/manufacturing/doctype/bom_creator/ on v16 / 16.21.1):

  • Per-line UOM / conversion factor. Lines are locked to the item’s stock UOM with conversion_factor = 1; there’s no UOM column in the sub-assembly dialog and no get_conversion_factor() call. Entering e.g. 2.5 g of a Kg-stock polymer isn’t possible cleanly. (Notably, the uom/conversion_factor/ stock_qty fields already exist on BOM Creator Item, so this looks like a small logic-only fix.)
  • Always submits; no Draft option. create_bom() always submit()s.
  • Forced default. Every generated BOM (including each sub-assembly) becomes is_default, silently superseding existing defaults, with no opt-out.
  • No round-trip / import of an existing BOM back into the tool for editing.
  • Discovery: no entry point from the BOM list or new-BOM form.
  • Tree legibility: the generic tree gets hard to scan for deep assemblies — no level grouping / collapse-by-depth. (mockup below)
  • Two minor dead fields (bom_no write target that doesn’t exist; default_warehouse never consumed).

I’ve also found existing related issues and would cross-link rather than duplicate: fetching a sub-assembly’s BOM (#42932), reusing/linking existing BOMs (#38438), operations support (#44094 / #40529 / #48154), in-place item switching (#38395).

My intended approach keeps everything producing standard BOM documents and improves the existing BOM Creator (not a parallel tool), so each item can be a small, self-contained PR. Full write-up and phased plan here: New BOM Creator Tool - Github

Questions for the maintainers

  1. Are any of these already on the roadmap?
  2. Which would you consider in-scope for PRs to core?
  3. Are there any of these changes that you’d rather see as a separate app than merged into core?

Questions for everyone using BOM Creator in production

I want to make sure I’m not building around only my own workflow. Please chime in:

  • Which of these hits you the hardest? Helps me prioritise the PR order.
  • What am I missing? Any gap not on this list — bugs, feature requests, edge cases in costing / subcontracting / variants / process loss / print output / batch qty / alternative items / by-products / operations that BOM Creator handles poorly.
  • UX ideas for the tree view. Expand-to-level? Colour or icon by depth? A cost overlay per node? Something else?
  • Two-layer workflow feedback. I’m proposing Structure first (tree + qty/UOM + sub-assembly reuse), Detail second (operations, warehouses, alternates, by-products, active/default) — over the same tree, not a modal wizard. Does that match how you actually build BOMs?
  • Anything you’ve already worked around locally with client scripts / custom apps — I’d rather learn from your patches than reinvent them.

Happy to start with the smallest, lowest-risk ones (the UOM fix and the dead-field cleanup). Thanks!

(Attaching a screenshot of a real 3-level BOM tree to illustrate the legibility point.)

image
image1920×1450 171 KB

1 Like
Request for native Piece-Rate support in Manufacturing Operations
2

Hi @Nisarg5900

This is really great to improve the manufacturing module

Hopefully Frappe team will support you @mihir-kandoi

Best of luck

1 Like
3

Thanks for the interest in contributing to ERPNext. We are currently not accepting direct contributions from the community. However, if you can give me the branch of your work on your fork, I can try and create a PR from it.