On 08 Jul 04:21, Michal wrote: > > > On Monday, July 7, 2014 4:12:25 PM UTC+2, 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. > > > > That would really help us make the right decision. > > > > [1]: https://bugs.tryton.org/issue3731 > > [2]: http://codereview.tryton.org/14341002 > > -- > > Nicolas Évrard - B2CK SPRL > > E-mail/Jabber: [email protected] <javascript:> > > Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 > > Website: http://www.b2ck.com/ > > > > Hi, > From my experience sub-accounting (analytic accounting) for every party is > not a good solution in a general ledger, > it should be done on a sub-diary ledger level. > What if you have more then 100 000 customers ? > What if your customers are one-off ? > Each year come new customers and old depart, who will manage this > sub-accounts ?
I think you did not understand the change, it is exactly the opposite of your description. Tryton is designed to not require to create account for each party. Here the change is about a better enforcement of this usage. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgp4SXe0oA5Rx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
