Am 05.03.2014 19:04, schrieb Cédric Krier:
> 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.
+1
