On 2015-12-17 05:58, Agustín Montagna wrote: > Hi everyone, > > In the last time we have been working with different clients in Argentina > that evidences the need of a improve or a new tool in the analytics > modules. Specifically, a feature that allows distribute a cost/revenue line > (in a sale/purchase) over diferents analytics accounts. I've found others > post about this subjet [1]. <https://bugs.tryton.org/issue3620> > > I tried to list the main reasons of this need: > > - Several Cost are Direct and easily assignable to a cost centre, in > that cases there is no problem cause the complete line is related or > imputed to a one cost-centre. > - Many Cost are indirects, i mean, it is no possible to assign > completely to a cost-centre (machine, departament, employee, area...) but > is neceesary to distribute it in a group of annalytics lines. > - Sometimes, the distribution is proportional, for example, 120$ in > three annalytics acoounts corresponding 40$ each. Other times the > distribution is no proportional and its based in diferents criteria. Other > tipycal example is the distribution of the rent cost in relation with the > space each cost centre is using. > - A typical example is the electricity tax. The tax is one ammount, and > we need to distribute it beetween several areas or departaments, eache one > with one %. > - Sometime we need to allocate indirect revenues to one or more cost > centers in diferents portions. > > SAP uses three kink of distributions rules for example: > > > - > > Distribution rules that has a one-to-one relationship with the > corresponding cost centers. (the one in Tryton) > - > > Distribution rules that you create as master data. This kind of > distribution rule is the most common one. You create it to allocate direct > and indirect expenses and revenues to one or more cost centers. > - > > Distribution rules that you create manually for individual transactions. > This kind of distribution rule is defined for particular transactions and > does not affect the distribution rule master data. > > I wonder how can we create a blueprint or a path to design and develop (i > imagine someone maybe could have the develop started...) this features for > the next tryton releases.
Here is a copy of an answer I made recently about similar question: """ As you said the usual need for accounting is on the P&L and not on the Balance. So I think in the base module, we should only have support for this usage and it is what we currently have with the analytic_* modules. For me, the "mandatory" flag on analytic root is only for P&L (maybe we should rename or add an help) (customize module could add on for Balance). And it should be used to only enforce the data to fill on higher document like the sale, purchase and invoice (maybe more if there is need). But it should not prevent to create/post accounting moves. Indeed I think we need a report/wizard (probably similar to the new reconciliation) that search for accounting move lines (from P&L) which doesn't respect the mandatory flag and which doesn't have a correct amount (compared to the line debit/credit). The wizard will allow the user to fix those error and so ensure that the analytic chart gives correct values. This wizard should be written to allow to extend the non-valid rule (for example: add Balance check, make mandatory per journal etc.) Finally for performance, we need to have a valid/checked flag on the analytic line (similar to the account.move.line) to be able to check only new/invalid lines. This flag should be reset if new rules are append (those rule should have a date range and idem for mandatory flags). Finally, I'm not strictly against having a MatchMixin rule system to fill the analytic of moves but I think it is a complex task to support all cases. Also I think analytic should be used to put more information in the system while with a rule system no information is created and so it is just most of the case a matter of writing the good report (which is less expensive than a good rule system). As you can see for the project_revenue where most of the other system will use analytic, I really think we should use straight link when they are clearly defined. """ I could add that for the case of electricity bill, we could imagine to have one temporary analytic account per chart to use on document when the repartition is too much complex. In this case the wizard, I told, could also consider such line as non-valid and request for a correct repartition. Also we could have a wizard that stores repartition schema, a little bit like the move template, that we could apply on any move line. Long story short: So I think the first step will be to clarify the do/module about the required analytic root. The second will to create the checking wizard. And the third will be to create the repartition template wizard. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tryton" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/20151219000739.GM11765%40tetsuo.wifi.b2ck.com.
