2014-07-11 2:38 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>: > 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.
Maybe Sergi has a point here. Employees wages (not the expense account but the payable/recievable one) would not require a party as many companies do not create an account per employee. >> >>> >> >>> - 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. We don't do that in fact, but on a second thought maybe it would be interesting to allow reconciling any kind of account. That is, only receviable/payable are the ones that "must" be reconciled normally but I think it can be useful to allow reconciling others too. It would just mean drop the constraint on the wizard, but do not change other domains on the application where only receivables/payables can be used. > >> >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/ -- Albert Cervera i Areny Tel. 93 553 18 03 @albertnan www.NaN-tic.com
