Yes,
this is the plan ;-)
As a next step in this effort, in my opinion we should make sure that
all the people interested in working on this are on the same wave... and
the best way of achieving this is to practice with the existing OFBiz GL
stuff (yeah, I know there is not too much at the moment).
For this reason, during the last few days, I've tried to clean up some
of the existing GL screens, and also implemented new stuff to make tests
easier.
Using the UI it should already be possible to:
1) browse all the existing accounts (see the "Chart of Accounts" menu);
these are all the accounts available in the system, but to before you
can do GL on an internal organization you have to associate the ones you
need to the organization
2) using the "Companies" menu, we can select the internal organization
we are interested in, and then in the "Setup" submenu we enter the setup
area: we associate the accounts to the organization, view defaults and
map (this will be important for automatic transaction posting) "accounts
types" to "accounts ids"
3) if, under the "Companies" menu, we select the "accounting" submenu we
can perform some GL tasks: search/view the "accounting transactions",
manually create new ones, search/view the "accounting transactions
entries" (D/C); there is also a very simple Trial Balance report... that
I'm proud of because it is completely written using widgets ;-)
We should all play with these screen because I'm sure that after this we
will have a better idea of how we can help, what we can do, how we can
test our work; and we should probably start thinking about
documenting/sharing some use cases/test data/for the upcoming
development effort.
Jacopo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perfect Jacopo
And I learned something too. Sync calls are part of the begin/commit
transaction and async calls are not. Thanks for the feedback.
In this way, especially if we put all the seca definitions for accounting
stuff in one file, people can just comment them out or uncomment them if
they don't want or do want GL accounting done.
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OFBiz] Users - Accounting Extension (GL, etc) Now In Beta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am thinking about the implementation of this.
As I mentioned, I am strongly motivated to make each entry in
AcctgTrans/AcctgTransEntry an atomic part of the underlying reason for the
enter, say an Invoice creation. If the AcctgTrans/AcctgTransEntry
creation
fails, the Invoice creation should be rolled back as well to the integrity
of the business is maintained.
On the other hand, it is my expectation that most Ofbiz users will not use
this or want the overhead.
So, my question. Can a SECA be used? If the code in a SECA that is
Yes, this is what we should really implement.
associated with a commit on some entity generates an exception, is the
associated transaction rolled back? For example, if a SECA was tied to an
Invoice commit and that code caused an exception, would the Invoice commit
be rolled back too?
Yes... and no :-)
If in the seca you set the service call as sync then everything will be
rolled back (if the accounting transaction fails); if you set the seca
as async then it will not.
I'd say that by default we should keep the accounting secas as async,
but some customer could change them to async.
Does it make sense?
Jacopo
Skip
