* Cédric Krier <[email protected]> [05.03 19:04]: > 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.
I vote for the sub-account usage as well. But I don't think it would be a good idea to enforce the usage on all receivable/payable accounts because there are some receivable/payable accounts which have an implied party like the tax office, the social insurance etc. It would be a PITA for the accountant to select a party in cases like that. As you always say: More constraints = less flexible. Will this change have any impact on the current usage on revenue and expense accounts? Marco
