On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Stroller
wrote:
\
>
> Ah! But my dual Scottish and Lancastrian heritage requires me to bill
> the customer for said petty item (which might equally be an obscure
> BNC network cable of a type which I'm never going to see again) so my
> concern is having some part n
beamends wrote:
>
> The ability to alter the description is quite important here - for some
> reason that I wouldn't like to speculate on customers often require the
> description to be vague, such as "Lorry Parts" ;-)
>
But often the partcode gives this away also, hence the need to alter both.
Chris Travers wrote:
> 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
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 21:24 -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> I do a similar thing FWIW.
> >
> > 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
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
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
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
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 cumbersom
10 matches
Mail list logo
