* Cédric Krier: " Re: [tryton] party field on account line" (Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:50:29 +0200):
> 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.
I also don't see any advantage in forcing the field to be empty, when it is not
required. The Boolean can be used as constraint or domain and should be enough.
--
Mathias Behrle
MBSolutions
Gilgenmatten 10 A
D-79114 Freiburg
Tel: +49(761)471023
Fax: +49(761)4770816
http://m9s.biz
UStIdNr: DE 142009020
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
