On 10 Jul 20:38, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote: > 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.
Don't really think it is an important usage. > - The expense account of the employees wage. The party doesn't really matter there. > >>> > >>> - 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. I think for such account it is wrong to give the type receivable/payable. > >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. Don't understand. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgp4xnC8rhfK_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
