Reference vs Code
Those are new sequences:
"Supplier Return Shipment Sequence"
"Supplier Shipment Sequence"
"Internal Shipment Sequence"
"Customer Return Shipment Sequence"
"Customer Shipment Sequence"
"Party Reference Sequence"
"Purchase Reference Sequence"
"Sale Reference Sequence"
What is the reason for the naming of some sequences with "Reference"?
I propose to drop Reference from the name.
Activity
added type::behavior + 1 deleted label
assigned to @bch
Hi,
I chose to add "Reference" in the name when the sequence is used to fill-in fields that are called Reference, e.g. : "Purchase Reference Sequence" is used to fill the "Reference" field of the purchase form. So this tell precisely where the sequences are used.
What's exactly the problem ? Are the names too long ?
I'm in favor of keeping those names, should we vote ?I just think it should be as uniform as possible.
If the numbers purpose is to serve as unique identifiers, this applies also to the shipment sequences, so they should be called 'Reference sequences', too.
Rather unusual seems to me the use of 'Party Reference Sequence', because from party there are no documents involved needing a reference number.
So basically my question is: which exact meaning should reference have in this context, if not as reference number relating to business processes resp. the resulting documents?Several issues actually:
- The easy one: "Party Reference Sequence" is just wrong it should be "party Sequence" as there is no Reference field on the party.
- Sale and Purchase sequences are more tricky, IMO the "Reference" field should be called "Code" as for shipments and parties: For me, Code means "internal reference" and Reference means "external code", i.e. the code used by my supplier. So I propose to name those sequences "Sale sequence" and "Purchase sequence" and to plan a migration (after the release) to rename "Sequence" into "Code" on the sales and purchases.
What do you think ?Fully agreed.
We have the choice between:
Reference = relation to an external document (like for purchase, account move)
Code = internal code
(which will be usually in the special case of sales the number used as reference for and by the customer, but it is nevertheless so far a code inside the application)
or:
External Reference = external documents
(Internal) Reference = internal documents
Code = internal reference numbers on models
But I think the first option will be best.Party sequence fixed with revision a63ef9bab323.
@ced: for the name consistency of reference vs code, should I add a TODO in purchase and sale module or is it better to simply let this issue open ?Translation have been updated : http://hg.tryton.org/hgwebdir.cgi/modules/party/
Here is my proposal for this naming convention.
'reference' should be used only as free field to encode reference from outside
'code' should be used for referential model like product, party etc.
'number' should be used for operational model like invoice, sale, purchase etc.
'reference' field should always be enter by the user
'code' field should be filled by a configured sequence and if there is no sequence than the field should be editable and required
'number' field should be filled only by a configured sequence and could be required depending of the requirements for the model.unassigned @bch
assigned to @ced
New changeset bcd714180eeb by C?dric Krier in branch 'default':
Naming convention for code, number and reference
http://hg.tryton.org/modules/account_asset/rev/bcd714180eeb
