On 09.11.2015 17:55, Cédric Krier wrote: > 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. You did not yet convince me about this point. Maybe we did not yet understand each other completely. >> 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. > Could you please again define for me the credit note you are talking about? What makes your credit note different from an invoice?
Could you explain me how you want to handle partial cancelation?
