On 07 Jul 16:12, Nicolas Évrard wrote: > Hello, > > In issue 3731 [1] we are discussing about the meaning of the party field > on the account move lines. > > It seems that the consensus is that this field should be used as some > kind of sub-account categorization. Following this consensus I > implemented the review 14341002 [2]. > > This review adds on the account definition a boolean to specify if the > account use the party field for sub-accounting. > > But while implementing it we realized that all the accounts with the > boolean set would be receivable / payable accounts. So we're > considering using this information instead of the new boolean. > > Does anybody have any additional information such as: > > - there are some other kind of accounts where the party > sub-accounting can be used > > - not every receivable/payable account entries must have a party > linked to them.
This could be the case if accountant create such account for a specific party. I'm wondering if it is wise to enforce the party to be empty if the required boolean is not set. My concern are about performence because it requires to test such property in many places of the code instead of not care and always set it because any way the field will be invisible. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpVg0lCbgQxG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
