Thanks Cedrick for your answer. It is good to know the feature is it being thought before its devolpment. My experience is short and i trust in yours recommendations (about how to face the feature). Can I ask if is already open a blueprint or a issue for the development of this feature? How can i follow the subjet o contribute in any case??
Regards! Agustín El viernes, 18 de diciembre de 2015, 21:10:06 (UTC-3), Cédric Krier escribió: > > 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] <javascript:> > 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/0a44318b-81e1-4aee-9f07-965fca0f492f%40googlegroups.com.
