On 04 Mar 23:40, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > After some discussion with this [1] issue it seems that it's not been > clearly stated what the party field in account move lines means. It > could be one of: > > - it is just a flag that represents the owning (that is, who made that > move happen) > - it is an easy way to implement sub-account per party. > > I had always taken for granted that party was used to implement > sub-account and hence the issue and the corresponding codereview. > > What is other people's opinion on this? What's your expected behaviour > taking into account the use case described in [1]?
If the second one is picked, we should enforce it by making party required for any move line on receivable/payable and probably hide it (+maturity date) for others. Such behavior could lead to a more complicate implementation in the furture of POS for which we don't know the party. But maybe it could be solved by using a company as party in such case. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpr6MPOJTltd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
