* Betr.: " Re: [tryton] Zero-price items" (Sun, 15 May 2011 17:20:08 +0200):
> On 12/05/11 18:29 +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > > >What I want to say is that it is a feature not very important and
> > > >compared to the time it will take to implement/test, there is really
> > > >a lot of other stuffs to do.
> > >
> > > Maybe it is not the most important, but there is a small conceptual
> > > problem there.
> >
> > Whether small or not, I think it is important;).
>
> We talk here about the split of required and nonzero, not about the zero unit
> price issue.
I am talking about this, too.
> > JFTR: we had to eliminate the
> > 'required' on unit_price already long time ago, because for us (in Germany)
> > there are many use cases for invoice lines with amount 0.
>
> It would have been good to talk about this at this time.
Open answer: there were times in the past being very painful for those
discussions. And IIRC we had some discussion in IRC at the time.
> I have create the issue2022 [1] for this.
Good.
> > I like very much the idea to have 'required' and 'nonzero'.
>
> I think we all agree that it will be good but not absolutly required.
> So patch is welcome :-)
Hmm. For me it would be more important to have a real 'required' instead of
'nonzero' for numbers, because the latter can be checked easily...;)
--
Mathias Behrle
MBSolutions
Gilgenmatten 10 A
D-79114 Freiburg
Tel: +49(761)471023
Fax: +49(761)4770816
http://m9s.biz
UStIdNr: DE 142009020
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
