Hi John, Does the attached patch for LedgerSMB/AA.pm fix the subcent-paid transactions showing up in the transaction summary screen?
If so, I propose we apply this and back out of the original "details is default" patch. How about that? Bye, Erik. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Erik Huelsmann <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:46 AM, John Locke <m...@freelock.com> wrote: > >> Hi, Eric, >> >> Oh, interesting. I think you and I are after exactly the same thing, but >> we're starting with a different report. >> >> I use AR -> Reports -> Transactions (summary). >> >> I'm guessing you use AR -> Reports -> Outstanding (detail). >> > > Yup. That's interesting indeed, because as you, I never noticed there's a > similar report! > > >> A summary report on the first is almost exactly the same as a details >> report on the second. Almost, but not quite... >> >> >> So yes, I see AR -> Reports -> Outstanding -> summary as not something I >> need all the time -- and if it's misleading, that should get fixed. >> > > > >> >> AR -> Reports -> Transactions -> detail has too much detail -- it expands >> all of the line items on invoices, so it's now much longer. >> > > Right. I usually don't need that view either. And when I do, I can run > something similar through the GJ -> Reports menu. > > I'm seeing one difference between the two: Transactions is showing >> transactions that are out of balance by a fraction of a cent (the old >> invoices with calculated sales tax) while Outstanding omits them. >> > > That's interesting as well: they should be considered closed, so, I'd say > that the Transactions view is incorrect. > > In general, I must say that all these combinations make it way too easy > for inconsistencies to creep in! > > Otherwise we often are using Transactions to get a customer invoice >> history, by selecting the "closed" checkbox. For that reason alone, I would >> like to preserve the summary default there, though I can have people switch >> to the Outstanding report for the more typical use... >> >> > Sure. I think that's a logical selection that I do use occasionally as > well. > > I wonder if it might make sense to actually split these into 3 reports? >> Seems like it would be confusing to have two reports lead to pretty much >> the same thing -- both with "summary" and "detail" options that do >> different things. What we have here are four different reports with two >> that are the same. How about splitting into something like: >> >> - Invoices/Transactions (with options for open and closed, the report >> both you and I use) >> - Customer outstanding totals (outstanding summary, hopefully fixed to >> only include open transactions) >> - Items (Transaction detail report) >> >> Not sure the second one is necessary, with the aging report also >> available... >> >> > Right. I think the aging overlaps with the customer outstanding totals, > when selecting "open" invoices. If you select open and closed, they differ, > but I can see myself wanting to add a column for "closed invoices" to > address that use case within the aging report. > > Also, I wonder if the third item is required, since the GJ -> Reports > selection can be used to create a nearly equal report. The only difference > is that the GJ->Report interface doesn't allow selecting open and/or closed > invoices. I wonder if that's an issue in practice though. > > I think it would make sense to rethink these reports as part of the 1.5 > rewrite. > > > However, for now: what's our next action? I can see that I might need to > retrain users to use Transactions instead of Outstanding (Details), that > way we don't have to change the defaults in a release that's been going for > so long. > > However, then I do think we need to work on the sub-cent issue, because > that's a regression from where I stand :-) > > > @Chris: can we re-wire the transaction report to use the Outstanding > (details) logic? after all, they should be the same report: they have the > same columns, I think and allow for the same columns to be added, right? > > -- > Bye, > > Erik. > > http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP. > Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. > -- Bye, Erik. http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
aa.patch
Description: Binary data
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Ledger-smb-devel mailing list Ledger-smb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
