* Cédric Krier: " Re: [tryton] Revisiting product's type" (Fri, 2 Jan 2015 10:49:44 +0100):
> On 02 Jan 00:20, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
> > Currently product's type can be one of:
> >
> > - Assets
> > - Goods
> > - Service
> >
> > However, I don't think it's correct to have the distinction between Assets
> > and Goods/Service. For example, if my company is dedicated to selling cars
> > and I have the product "Kia Sportage Emotion" I may have it in stock for
> > selling but I may also purchase the car to be used by one of our employees.
>
> Yes and they are different "things". You can not sale an asset like that
> and you can not "use" a goods.
>
> > In this case, currently we'd need to create two separate products for what
> > it actually is the same product.
>
> No it is not the same product.
> "Product" in Tryton will depend of its usage.
> For example, you can have different "service" products but that are at
> the end the same "thing" for example the employee work.
I think I understand your conceptional idea, but the result is quite distict
from the understanding and needs in everyday business. The average user doesn't
want to follow the line of thought, that this very same product in terms
of origin, name and all attributes shall be different products with regard to
its further usage. Also it is a real shortcoming, if models in software don't
meet the usage of objects in the real world. In my understanding the usage of a
product shouldn't have any relation or impact on the type of a product.
Just another example:
A shop for art supplies sells batteries and pencils. For their own use they just
take, what they need, from stock. They surely don't want to order the
same product as different products from the supplier according to a usage, they
even don't know exactly beforehand. They will be unnecessarily impeded by the
current design.
> > I think that just like we moved "Consumable" out of the "Type" field into a
> > boolean we should do the same with Assets. Add a new check box "Asset" that
> > when true it would allow to fill in the asset-related accounts.
> >
> > I think the checkbox should always be available (no matter if type is Goods
> > or Service) because a patent is not a good but it is an asset.
>
> Patent is not really a problem. Of course you could make a stock move
> with patent but it is not a big deal.
>
> But the main reason we must have 2 different products for asset and
> product is because they must be distinguished at the stock level and
> they have a different behaviour on an invoice.
Perhaps I don't see the implications, but I don't understand, why this behavior
shouldn't be possible without tying it to the type. Could you elaborate a bit
more, why a Boolean couldn't serve this purposes?
> Maybe we should put the type in the rec_name of product to avoid having
> twice the same name for both types.
--
Mathias Behrle
MBSolutions
Gilgenmatten 10 A
D-79114 Freiburg
Tel: +49(761)471023
Fax: +49(761)4770816
http://www.m9s.biz
UStIdNr: DE 142009020
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
pgpIKbbErrcOa.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
