Hi, Thanks for your reply. But I don't agree because of the following:
A purchaser should not be able to change customers, or the other way around. From the point of view of segregation of functions within a organisation this is not acceptable. Selling to employees could be a nice feature, but not by default. There is a high risk of fraud when it is that easy to sell products to yourself or colleagues. Within sales orders just parties should be possible which are authorized by the sales department for sales orders. Authorizing also means a valid credit check, which is the main reason to prevent selling to everybody. Of course in a B2C environment where orders are paid in advance this is not an issue. The same goes for purchase orders and suppliers. I would like to see a distinction between Suppliers and Customers, because there are different parameters possible for these entities. This could be done by the same way this has been done for Companies and Employees (extra table). Again for segregation of functions I believe there should be a different program available for each entity of parties. Regards, Eric On Sep 20, 3:03 pm, Cédric Krier <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20/09/10 05:15 -0700, Eric Klaasse wrote: > > > Within the current implementation of parties, a party becomes > > associated to sales or purchase when an order is entered. So, a > > customer is not a customer when there is not yet an order and the > > customer will therefore not appear in the list of 'Parties associated > > to Sales' . > > I find this logical. > > > This means also that it's possible to enter orders to employees and > > companies, because they are parties as well. When you search for a > > customer within a sales order, all parties (regardless of the type) > > will be shown. > > Of course, a employee can buy products from the company where he works. It is > often the case and they can special prices. > > > To my opinion a party should be assigned to purchase and/or sales > > within their definition. And only assigned parties are allowed within > > orders. > > It can be expected for purchase as the company could have rules about who > can be a supplier or not. And the product could be limited to those of which > the party is a supplier. > But this is hard constraint that I find should not be in the default modules > but on additional modules. > > For sale, I don't see why you would like to prevent to sale to someone. And by > the way, it is the best way to have duplicate parties just because one is not > defined as customer. > > > Furthermore within the order the search button for invoice addresses > > and delivery addresses will give all related addresses, again > > regardless of the type (invoice, delivery..). > > This is something that can not yet be customizable in Tryton. There is only > one default order by Model. > It could be a nice new feature. > > -- > Cédric Krier > > B2CK SPRL > Rue de Rotterdam, 4 > 4000 Liège > Belgium > Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 > Email/Jabber: [email protected] > Website:http://www.b2ck.com/ > > application_pgp-signature_part > < 1KViewDownload -- [email protected] mailing list
