El 07/07/14 17:50, Cédric Krier ha escrit:
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
I have seen manually per party sub-accounting (create an account for
each party) in the following cases:
- The account used to reflex the share capital of each stackholder in
the company.
- The expense account of the employees wage.
>
> - not every receivable/payable account entries must have a party
> linked to them.
Maybe it only affects Spain, but we have receivable/payable accounts
that are related to the Entity which collects taxes, and you know that
all of this account's moves are related to this party, so it's common to
let the party field blank.
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.
So i reporting we have to add additional queries in order to filter
those records that have the party set but it's not set? I prefer a lot
of checks, than having this things.
--
Sergi Almacellas Abellana
www.koolpi.com
Twitter: @pokoli_srk
