We have a small problem I hope you can provide some insight on. Our data capturer has captured payments for invoices through the general ledger section as apposed to capturing them against invoices. Is there a way we can link these payments to the invoices so that our debtors balances correctly? I am fairly competent with databases as I am a developer myself, so if there is a way we can create the association in the database I will be prepared to try that route as apposed to undoing all the work done to this point.
Regards, Matthew Kent [email protected] www.solveur.co.za 031 764 5450 On 19 Feb 2009, at 6:55 AM, [email protected] wrote: Send Ledger-smb-users mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ledger-smb-users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Clickable Part Numbers (Jeff Kowalczyk) 2. Re: How to deal with Paypal fees/cashback (Ed W) 3. Re: Clickable Part Numbers (Ed W) 4. Re: On Hand correction (Ed W) 5. Re: Clickable Part Numbers (Chris Travers) 6. Re: On Hand correction (Chris Travers) 7. Re: On Hand correction (Chris Travers) 8. Re: Clickable Part Numbers (Stroller) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:22:18 -0500 From: Jeff Kowalczyk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Clickable Part Numbers To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Richard wrote: > I wonder if it would be possible to make the (Part) Number field in > Invoices and Quotations link to the Part record? The requirement is > that > when creating them, particularly a Quote, I often need to put a part > on > order, or check that it already is, and this is quite cumbersome at > the > moment. Is this a requirement anyone else has? I think its a good usability feature for the LedgerSMB branches/1.2 version, although such a change won't be incorporated into a maintenance branch. IIRC, the misfeature of the current 1.2 UI is that if the user edits the part number for an instantiated line item, it does not search for a new part in that lineitem slot. I think the user can even save the document with an arbitrarily altered partnumber, since the hidden parts.id is used for identity. If that's the case, then clickable partnumber links to parts definitions may be appropriate/improvement in some but not all use cases. Better to evaluate trunk (1.3) behavior before planning modifications, though. Jeff ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:40:23 +0000 From: Ed W <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] How to deal with Paypal fees/cashback To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Chris Travers wrote: > I would just use GL transactions, against a bank charges and an > interest account. > Some people use the words "banking discounts" to mean the same as "expense". I mention this more so that you have something to search against because there is some info on the SL lists about this also (using the "discount" phrase) Good luck Ed W ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:44:49 +0000 From: Ed W <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Clickable Part Numbers To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Jeff Kowalczyk wrote: > > IIRC, the misfeature of the current 1.2 UI is that if the user edits > the > part number for an instantiated line item, I think the point of this is that different companies will use different part numbers for the same item. The idea is that you can set these in the item itself, but on an adhoc basis you can add an item to an invoice and then overwrite both the description and the part number On the other hand this is incredibly dangerous in practice because the instinct for new users is to just correct the itemcode & description (especially if the items are similar) and of course this deducts the wrong inventory item, etc. Also very hard to spot after the event... I think a useful solution would be that if the code is overwritten, to display it as a fixed field with *our* code first and the overwritten code as an editable box next to it. The final invoice/PO would still only show the overwritten field though Ed W ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:48:37 +0000 From: Ed W <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] On Hand correction To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Nigel Titley wrote: > Folks, > > Some how I've managed to get the inventory for one of my parts > incorrect. I suspect this was related to some invoice twiddling that I > did early on when I didn't really understand the system, but the > upshot > is that I have more in the system than I have on the shelf. How do I > go > about getting this right? I can think of two solutions: > > 1. I create a fictional "Inventory correction" customer and sell the > parts to him at zero cost > 2. I delve into the database and fix the quantity directly in the > relevant table > > Neither of these seems terribly elegant and the second one sounds > decidedly risky. > With SL at least this happens constantly... I run a query to count all the items of a given part which are sold and bought. The balance should be the items on hand (although this isn't true if you use the shipping function for sales orders...). Given the correct "on hand" amount I then adjust the database figure to show the correct on-hand In contrast though if I bought 10, sell 5, onhand=5, but my physical stock check shows only 3 remaining then I must have lost 2 somewhere. These need to be written off. I believe the correct technique is to use a "written off" customer and sell for zero cost. This will cause the P&L to take an immediate loss and the balance sheet will also be adjusted. Ed W ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:38:11 -0800 From: Chris Travers <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Clickable Part Numbers To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Ed W <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff Kowalczyk wrote: >> >> IIRC, the misfeature of the current 1.2 UI is that if the user >> edits the >> part number for an instantiated line item, > > > I think the point of this is that different companies will use > different > part numbers for the same item. The idea is that you can set these in > the item itself, but on an adhoc basis you can add an item to an > invoice > and then overwrite both the description and the part number It seems to me we need per-vendor part numbers AND separate associated UPC codes when we revisit the inventory side. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:11:32 -0800 From: Chris Travers <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] On Hand correction To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Ed W <[email protected]> wrote: > Nigel Titley wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Some how I've managed to get the inventory for one of my parts >> incorrect. I suspect this was related to some invoice twiddling >> that I >> did early on when I didn't really understand the system, but the >> upshot >> is that I have more in the system than I have on the shelf. How do >> I go >> about getting this right? I can think of two solutions: >> >> 1. I create a fictional "Inventory correction" customer and sell the >> parts to him at zero cost >> 2. I delve into the database and fix the quantity directly in the >> relevant table >> >> Neither of these seems terribly elegant and the second one sounds >> decidedly risky. >> > > With SL at least this happens constantly... > > I run a query to count all the items of a given part which are sold > and > bought. The balance should be the items on hand (although this isn't > true if you use the shipping function for sales orders...). Given the > correct "on hand" amount I then adjust the database figure to show the > correct on-hand I have a query to do this easily too. One nice thing is you can get a total as it should have existed at any point in time. The only tricky part is when you are using assemblies to offer volume discounts. Then you have to look at assemblies too. It gets more complex if SOME assemblies are volume discounts, and others are not. What I do in this case is flag volume discounts in the db so I know which assemblies to look into. > > In contrast though if I bought 10, sell 5, onhand=5, but my physical > stock check shows only 3 remaining then I must have lost 2 somewhere. > These need to be written off. I believe the correct technique is to > use > a "written off" customer and sell for zero cost. This will cause the > P&L to take an immediate loss and the balance sheet will also be > adjusted. I run the query as part of the inventory count process too. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:13:09 -0800 From: Chris Travers <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] On Hand correction To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 My query of this sort has moved into the 1.3 module of sql/modules/Inventory.sql, so you can see it in svn. It requires extending the parts table slightly to run on 1.2. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:55:27 +0000 From: Stroller <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Clickable Part Numbers To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes On 17 Feb 2009, at 03:22, Jeff Kowalczyk wrote: > ... > IIRC, the misfeature of the current 1.2 UI is that if the user edits > the > part number for an instantiated line item, it does not search for a > new > part in that lineitem slot. I think the user can even save the > document > with an arbitrarily altered partnumber, since the hidden parts.id is > used > for identity. If I'm understanding your description correctly I have tended to do this for some miscellaneous items. I have a part number ZZ-ZZZ-ZZ that has a description of "miscellaneous item" but I have changed that description before posting the item. I might use this, for example, if I purchase a fancy binder from Staples to put customer documentation or a report in. All my parts are for plumbing items or services, so a usual invoice might consist of "12cm diameter pipe, 1m" x 6, "Labour, 1 hour" x 2. I don't want to manage stock of a petty stationary item that I'll never use again, or have a part number for it in my database; I do want to bill the customer for the item but I want to add it to the regular invoice & not have to create a separate AR > Add Transaction. I suspect this usage is "wrong" and I think I have more recently just left the description as "miscellaneous item" and added "binder" or "stationary" or whatever in the item notes, but since the time I started using SQL-Ledger the field was editable, so it "made sense" to edit it. Stroller. ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ledger-smb-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users End of Ledger-smb-users Digest, Vol 30, Issue 7 *********************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Ledger-smb-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
