Accounts on products are required. When check Use Category's Account, then the
accounts on category are no longer required.
1. Is it to hold the possibility for default accounts, or
Why is it needed to choose a category when we do not want
to set accounts directly?
2. Are the requirements missing on category accounts?
Thanks for clarification.
To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information
Scenario
--------
* Create a product category, save.
* Create a product
* Check on product: Use Category's Account
* Save Product
Expectation
-----------
I would expect one of the two behaviors:
1. Raise User Error: No accounts defined on product, product category or
parent product category.
2. The product category has required fields for the accounts, if there is
no parent category.
Issue
-----
The Product is saved, but should not, since accounts should be required
on products.
N.B. I think this issue is not release critical, since this behavior is
constant from version 1.0.
Udo Spallekadded 1 deleted label and removed 1 deleted label
Having such cross record integrity check is almost not possible to acheive nor to have a clean user experience.
That's why such check is done when the property is used.
Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:38:44 +0200
Cédric Krier @tryton.org>:
>Having such cross record integrity check is almost not possible to
>acheive nor to have a clean user experience.
>That's why such check is
>done when the property is used.
Yes, I am not sure about these in deep checks, either.
But for now the user experience is IMHO not clean, too.
The property as fall-back is a hidden feature, which can not be
controlled by non-admin users.
Proposal
--------
Add product configuration to set the defaults for:
* for each product and product category:
* accounts,
* taxes,
* product:
* Use Category's Account,
* Use Category's Taxes.
* product category:
* Use Parent's Accounts
* Use Parent's Taxes
Make the account fields on product category required as long as
"Use Parent's Accounts" is False.
Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:38:44 +0200
Cédric Krier @tryton.org>:
>Having such cross record integrity check is almost not possible to
>acheive nor to have a clean user experience.
>That's why such check is
>done when the property is used.
Yes, I am not sure about these in deep checks, either.
But for now the user experience is IMHO not clean, too.
The property as fall-back is a hidden feature, which can not be
controlled by non-admin users.
Proposal
--------
Add product configuration to set the defaults for:
* for each product and product category:
* accounts,
* taxes,
* product:
* Use Category's Account,
* Use Category's Taxes.
* product category:
* Use Parent's Accounts
* Use Parent's Taxes
Make the account fields on product category required as long as
"Use Parent's Accounts" is False.
On 14 Apr 14:28, Udo Spallek wrote:
> Just trying to understand, do you think the actual implementation
> has a clean user experience and there is no issue in msg16492?
Indeed I'm wondering if we should not remove the accounting fields from the product completely and use only accounting category.
The idea is that accounting properties should be set by accountant but other properties of a product are set by the product manager. So moving the accounting to only the category will allow to have an access to accounting category only.
The main difficulty is the migration of installations that are using definition on product. A possibility could be to create an accounting category for each product that has accounting properties.