On 05/03/14 19:04, Cédric Krier wrote:
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.
Yes, I like your proposal, the information in move lines will be more
accurate. Also it will be more understandable for the accounting staff:
only receivable/payable move lines will have party and maturity date.
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.
Yes, I don't think that the requirements of POS must affect this basic
account issue. Using a special party could be the solution.
--
Jordi Esteve
Consultor Zikzakmedia SL
[email protected]
Mòbil 679 170 693
Zikzakmedia SL
Dr. Fleming, 28, baixos
08720 Vilafranca del Penedès
Tel 93 890 2108
