On 19 Feb 2009, at 05:24, Chris Travers wrote:
>> ...
>> 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 f
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Stroller
wrote:
>
> 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
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
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
--
Open Source Business
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Ed W 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
>>
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Ed W 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 sa
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 s
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 ite
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 list
