2014-07-10 20:38 GMT+02:00 Sergi Almacellas Abellana <[email protected]>: > 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.
I think you misunderstood. The question is not when you create a new "account.account" but rather when you don't create a new "account.account" and use the party instead. >>> > >>> > - 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. In this cases we don't configure those accounts as receivable/payable anyway because it is a bit annoying to find those accounts when working with bank statements. >> 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 > -- Albert Cervera i Areny Tel. 93 553 18 03 @albertnan www.NaN-tic.com
