Hi Rob,
Thanks for your response. Comments below.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 8:40 PM, R. Ransbottom <rir...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I would advise requiring more setup than less.
>
> All the "simple" stuff should be required. Company info, basic CoA, etc.
> Setting up books is about the details, those should not
> be deferred. It sets the wrong tone for the naive beginner while the
> more experienced will expect the setup.
>
When a person or organisation has already decided to go for LedgerSMB, I
completely agree that this is the way to go. However, I'm wondering: if
it's very hard to evaluate the software one is considering - e.g. because a
full setup is required - won't people turn to products which are much
easier to get up and running (even if not setting them up completely, one
does get a feel for the product's UI...).
How do we balance required configuration with "acceptable effort before
evaluation"?
> Without good headers, reports are somewhat impaired.
>
> A basic CoA can be about 15 accounts. Having 5 or so extra required and
> a few required entities is not so burdensome; while they can give some
> more early clues to the system's features and workings.
>
Are you suggesting that we provide a setup like that for evaluation
purposes? Or is this something people should enter when setting up the
company through setup.pl? (Bring their own, so to say?)
> The idea of this flexibility is good but unimportant and mistimed.
>
Just to be sure we're on the same page: this is the current state of
affairs, not something I'm introducing right now (more a case of "running
into").
> My sense is LSMB could use more tests over more stuff to test.
>
Yes, I'm running into this due to the fact that I'm implementing tests for
things that don't currently have tests. But since I was changing the code,
I felt that I had to implement tests for the code that was already there
*and* for my changes. That's how I discovered that I couldn't test some of
the functionality that was already there (as the minimum company setup
didn't include prerequisites for functions I was trying to run).
So, yes, there's not "more stuff to test", but "more tests" which turns up
these questions.
> I agree with David that the unsetup company just doesn't run.
> I'd reduce that down to one boolean flag.
>
Thanks for your comments!
--
Bye,
Erik.
http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-devel mailing list
Ledger-smb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
