On 2015-11-09 17:43, 'Korbinian Preisler' via tryton wrote: > On 09.11.2015 17:14, Cédric Krier wrote: > > On 2015-11-09 16:55, 'Korbinian Preisler' via tryton wrote: > >> On 09.11.2015 16:28, Cédric Krier wrote: > >>> On 2015-11-09 16:00, 'Korbinian Preisler' via tryton wrote: > >>>> On 21.10.2015 15:08, Cédric Krier wrote: > >>>>> As already stated having invoice/credit note distinction prevents to put > >>>>> in the same document both kind of lines. And in case of such mixed > >>>>> document it is name is not so trivial to determine. But we can keep the > >>>>> numbering distinction using the total sign. > >>>>> About the cancelation sub-type, I don't think we have to create a new > >>>>> document (record in invoice table) for that. The current design is to > >>>>> create a cancelation move linked to the invoice. If a specific number is > >>>>> needed for customer cancelation, I guess the module (I talk above) could > >>>>> add an other field to hold the number and the invoice report could be > >>>>> customized to use this number. > >>>> After some thoughts i agree that we do not need the cancelation sub-type > >>>> but my explanation is a little bit different to Cedrics one. > >>>> I think we already have the cancelation sub-type. I think that we just > >>>> use the currency credit note sub-type in a wrong way because it should > >>>> be the cancelation instead of the tax-law credit-note. > >>>> > >>>> If we do like this many things will be possible or some others should be > >>>> done: > >>>> * Mixed documents will be possible > >>>> * The credit note like it is defined by tax law can be implemented with > >>>> a boolean field that marks the "self-billing" and that will switch the > >>>> layout of the report. As i noted in my last post there is no other > >>>> difference compared to a normal invoice. > >>> I don't see the need of such field because cancellation is already > >>> implemented. > >> Self-billing is not a cancelation. > > Oops, yes I re-read your previous post. Indeed I see no need for such > > boolean. You can consider all negative invoice as "self-billing". > I think this is a wrong approach. Self-billing is a change in process > but not a change in the document itself. > > I will try to explain again the self-billing process. Consider a > supplier A delivering a product to company B. Company B is the company > that is manage by tryton. > Normally the supplier will write an invoice for this delivery. But A and > B can agree on a self-billing by the customer. The customer then will > write a 'credit note' to the supplier. > As the customer is writing the invoice for himself he does a > self-billing. But in the sense of tryton it is just an in-invoice. There > is no need to make the total amount negative. > It is just a supplier invoice. Only the process how the invoice is > written is different.
OK so nothing to do. Tryton already manages the manual creation of supplier invoice. > I would use the negative total amount to determine the document to be a > cancellation or not. It will make the document handling for a > cancellation easier as you only have > one report per record. I don't agree, negative amount is a credit note not a cancellation. The cancellation of an invoice is managed the cancellation move. This is the only way to ensure that the cancellation is really a cancellation. The amounts can not be modified, the invoice can only be cancelled once etc. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
