On 02 Jan 14:25, Mathias Behrle wrote: > * Cédric Krier: " Re: [tryton] Revisiting product's type" (Fri, 2 Jan 2015 > 10:49:44 +0100): > > "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
Maybe the average user screws his accounting. > 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. Maybe the name "product" is not good enough. But in Tryton, product is mainly an accounting 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. Such behaviour in a company is forbiden in most countries because your accounting will be wrong. > > > 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? This will mean that you have to put this boolean on every stock move and take it into account for every stock operation like reservation etc. Also the cost price should probably be adapted because saling an asset must not change the cost price of a product. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpDPKRupjgsE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
