2014-03-05 19:04 GMT+01:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>: > 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.
We created the account_move_party_required module [1] for exactly that. Although we added a new flag Ii don't see a problem with doing it for all receivable/payable accounts. In fact, it's simpler. > 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. We're currently using Zikzakmedia's POS implementation and we're using a dummy party in that case, already. So no problem for me either. [1] https://bitbucket.org/trytonspain/trytond-account_move_party_required -- Albert Cervera i Areny Tel. 93 553 18 03 @albertnan www.NaN-tic.com
