Quoting Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 27 May 2008, at 18:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> ... In the UK ... there is a requirement that invoices be
>> consecutively
>> numbered.
>
> Is this new?
>
> I did a "starting your own business" course at the local Chamber of
> Commerce before I becam
Quoting Luke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That would be good for various reasons.
> However, making it user immutable, might not be reasonable. What if, for
> example, you royally screw up an invoice, perhaps by putting the wrong
> invoice number in on your own. You will want to go back and fix that.
I just noticed that once we migrated from SQL-Ledger to LedgerSMB, that we
no longer have the Salesperson field. We used this since at times the
logged in person needed to assign a sale to another salesperson. What was
the reason for removing this? Any issues adding the following back into a
> Ok. When you run top on the server during this process, what takes up
most of the time.
>
> I would bet it is postgres, right?
>
> 1) Do you use departments or projects?
> 2) Do you vacuum frequently?
>
>Best WIshes,
>Chris Travers
>
> When I run top -i on both servers, I see ps.pl process po
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Luke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> First a note on consecutive invoice numbering and why forcing this is
>> not reasonable for all users:
>
> By the way, if I suggested that, it was in error. The only thing I wanted
> t
> Ok. When you run top on the server during this process, what takes up
most of the time.
>
> I would bet it is postgres, right?
>
> 1) Do you use departments or projects?
> 2) Do you vacuum frequently?
>
>Best WIshes,
>Chris Travers
>
> When I run top -i on both servers, I see ps.pl process po
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Chris Travers wrote:
> First a note on consecutive invoice numbering and why forcing this is
> not reasonable for all users:
By the way, if I suggested that, it was in error. The only thing I wanted
to non-optionally force was the uniqueness of invoice numbers (sales,
vend
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Stroller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27 May 2008, at 20:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, I've just done that but it turns out that I do have a
>> duplicate invoice number. I do have a gap directly below it, though,
>> so I can just change invnumber.
First a note on consecutive invoice numbering and why forcing this is
not reasonable for all users:
The only way you can ensure that all invoices are consecutive is that
they run sequentialy from the point of getting an invoice number.
Otherwise, you allocate invoice numbers, some transactions rol
On 27 May 2008, at 20:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks, I've just done that but it turns out that I do have a
> duplicate invoice number. I do have a gap directly below it, though,
> so I can just change invnumber.
>
> Before I do that, is there anywhere else I will need to change it,
> ap
On 28 May 2008, at 01:18, Luke wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> remember). In the UK (at least; it may be the case in other
>> jurisdictions) there is a requirement that invoices be consecutively
>> numbered. Our tax trolls get very upset by gaps or - much worse -
>>
On 27 May 2008, at 18:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ... In the UK ... there is a requirement that invoices be
> consecutively
> numbered.
Is this new?
I did a "starting your own business" course at the local Chamber of
Commerce before I became self-employed 3 or 4 years ago, and my
unders
On Tue, 27 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ok, that's all happy now. Might be worth mentioning it in the
> documentation? This is certainly a feature that UK users will need,
> even without the gap-free incremental numbering.
I can't think of any reason why this should not be a univers
On Tue, 27 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> remember). In the UK (at least; it may be the case in other
> jurisdictions) there is a requirement that invoices be consecutively
> numbered. Our tax trolls get very upset by gaps or - much worse -
> duplicate invoice numbers. Much pain and
On Tue, 27 May 2008, beamends wrote:
> to hide the things that cause confusion - debits and credits being "the
> wrong way round" being a prime example. Accountants might not have a
> problem with that, Joe Bloggs thinks "Sales" and "Purchases" - so why
They aren't, really. "To the left side of"
Quoting Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:05 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> In the db, you can run (in 1.2 or 1.3):
>>>
>>> ALTER TABLE ar ADD UNIQUE(invnumber);
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, I've just done that but it turns
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:05 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quoting Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> In the db, you can run (in 1.2 or 1.3):
>>
>> ALTER TABLE ar ADD UNIQUE(invnumber);
>>
>
> Thanks, I've just done that but it turns out that I do have a
> duplicate invoice number. I do
> Ok. When you run top on the server during this process, what takes up
most of the time.
>
> I would bet it is postgres, right?
>
> 1) Do you use departments or projects?
> 2) Do you vacuum frequently?
>
>Best WIshes,
>Chris Travers
When I run top -i on both servers, I see ps.pl process popup
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I did see the compatibility file where it suggested to use either IE 7 or
> Firefox. Not supporting IE frankly is a critical issue, but that being said
> I still have an unusable POS when using Firefox 2.x. It takes minutes to
> up
Quoting Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In the db, you can run (in 1.2 or 1.3):
>
> ALTER TABLE ar ADD UNIQUE(invnumber);
>
Thanks, I've just done that but it turns out that I do have a
duplicate invoice number. I do have a gap directly below it, though,
so I can just change invnumber.
B
I did see the compatibility file where it suggested to use either IE 7 or
Firefox. Not supporting IE frankly is a critical issue, but that being
said I still have an unusable POS when using Firefox 2.x. It takes
minutes to update the following:
Search for customer (We do not use a dropdown fo
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>
>> On 27 May 2008, at 12:22, beamends wrote:
>> So I change the date & invoice number, click "Post As New" and now I
>> have two transactions - the old one is unaffected, the new one
>> contai
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 3:21 AM, beamends <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't disagree with the above, but software provides the opportunity
> to hide the things that cause confusion - debits and credits being "the
> wrong way round" being a prime example. Accountants might not have a
> problem
Test wich jquery
Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar
-Original Message-
From: "Chris Travers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:07:59
To:ledger-smb-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Ledger-smb-users] Problem w/POS after SQL-Ledger to Ledgersmb
migration
Look at the COMPATIBILITY file.
While we intend to make some attempts to support IE in the future
(probably via a JS/AJAX framework), IE 6 is fundamentally broken when
it comes to supporting BUTTON elements, and IE7 is partially broken.
For the partsgroup buttons to work, you probably need to use
Quoting Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 27 May 2008, at 12:22, beamends wrote:
> So I change the date & invoice number, click "Post As New" and now I
> have two transactions - the old one is unaffected, the new one
> contains the changes.
I'm just catching up with the last three weeks of pos
26 matches
Mail list logo
