On 2016-01-07 13:53, Mathias Behrle wrote: > * Cédric Krier: " Re: [tryton] RFC: Invoice sequences" (Thu, 7 Jan 2016 > 12:53:30 +0100): > > > On 2016-01-07 12:28, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > > * Cédric Krier: " Re: [tryton] RFC: Invoice sequences" (Sat, 26 Dec 2015 > > > 15:10:15 +0100): > > > > > > > On 2015-12-25 22:26, Jordi Esteve (Zikzakmedia) wrote: > > > > > El 24/12/15 a les 15:06, Cédric Krier ha escrit: > > > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > >Following the previous discussions about the invoice sequence and the > > > > > >fiscal year, I have started a feature request to improve the > > > > > >situation > > > > > >and manage more cases. > > > > > > > > > > > >https://bugs.tryton.org/issue5205 > > > > > > > > > > > >Please comment if the proposal could be in conflict with your local > > > > > >usage. > > > > > > > > > > The new proposal (a check when setting the number on an invoice to > > > > > ensure that the invoice date not before any invoice dates numbered > > > > > with > > > > > the same sequence) fits well the Spanish law and practice. > > > > > > > > > > In fact, the Spanish team maintains a module [1] that implements this > > > > > idea with some restrictions because the sequence is not yet stored in > > > > > invoices. > > > > > > > > > > https://bitbucket.org/trytonspain/trytond-account_invoice_consecutive > > > > > > > > I see you also have a check for invoice_date == accounting_date for out > > > > invoices. I'm wondering if we should also include this constraint in the > > > > base. > > > > > > According to our knowledge this constraint is definitely wrong for > > > Germany: > > > > > > The accounting date has to be > > > - the date of the delivery for imputed taxation > > > > But I guess there are some constraint. You can not put a date that is on > > a closed fiscal year for example. Or I think it will be very strange to > > have an invoice with a date in year Y (with numbering of year Y) and the > > accounting date in Y-1. > > The important date for accounting is the delivery date. The invoice date is a > trigger for payment terms.
Yes but the invoice number is generated using the sequence linked to the accounting date but with the invoice date in the context for formating. So my example will still be strange if you look at the invoice numbers. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com 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/20160107131146.GW11765%40tetsuo.wifi.b2ck.com.
pgpYK0VUe8lgs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
