On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Paul Foxworthy <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] > I think we need separate parameters invoiceItemTypeId and varianceReasonId, > instead of attempting to overload the meaning of the glAccountTypeId > parameter. > > What do you think? One way to go to preserve the existing functionalities would be that of creating one GlAccountType for each InvoiceItemType and VarianceReason records. Then we would need to define a mechanism to map InvoiceItemType/VarianceReason to GlAccountType. This would make the design a bit more "correct" but still it would be very complex, without adding much value. We could do this but, as I mentioned earlier, my preference would be to spend some time thinking/redefining the meaning of GlAccountTypes and (that could be that of identifying events that are relevant for the GL) and then clean up the system accordingly. Jacopo
